EV0Lari0N 


THE  UNIVERSITY 
OF  ILLINOIS 


LIBRARY 

2i& 

C7&e 


Return  this  book  on  or  before  the 
Latest  Date  stamped  below.  A 
charge  is  made  on  all  overdue 
books. 

U.  of  I.  Library 

OK  2? -35 
, JK'  12  13^3 

K"  13  (965 

JAN  11 

965 

viUN  21  !34G 

APR  -2  19 

DEC 

DEC  ' 

2 1979 

DEC  <0, 

APR  1 7 1982 

m : a ns 

■7 

^ /O' 

/c/f 

'■  ttCll 

98j 

M •:!» 

18 

MAY  15 

m2 

Hnt  1513; 

.)\J  251958 

Ur.c  2 a iat-i 

may  ( 

7 

1 

8 m2 

^ 805  7-S 

EVOLUTION 


THE  STONE  BOOK, 

AND  THE 

MOSAIC  RECORD  OF  CREATION. 


BY 

THOMAS  COOPER, 

Lecturer  on  Christianity: 

Author  of  * The  Purgatory  of  Suicides,  ‘ The  Paradise  of  Martyrs^ 
‘ The  Bridge  of  History  over  the  Gulf  of  Tivte^  etc.^  etc. 


CINCINNATI : 

CRANSTON  AND  CURTS. 

NEW  YORK: 

HUNT  AND  EATON. 

1893- 


PREFACE. 


HIS  fifth  Handbook  of  my  ‘Evidence  Series* 


contains  the  substance  of  Three  Lectures 
which  have  been  spoken  in  nearly  every  part  of 
England.  It  is  published — like  the  four  volumes 
which  preceded  it — ^t  the  urgent  request  of  my 
hearers,  and,  in  brief,  for  the  reasons,  already 
alleged,  which  induced  me  to  put  those  volumes 
into  print. 


THOMAS  COOPER. 


672404 


EVOLUTION. 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 
in  2017  with  funding  from 

University  of  Illinois  Urbana-Champaign  Alternates 


https://archive.org/details/evolutionstoneboOOcoop 


TABLE  OF  CONTENTS. 


PAGB 

INTRODUCTION  ........  I 

I. 

DE  MAILLET  AND  HIS  THEORY — LINNAEUS  AND  HIS 
‘ SYSTEMA  NATUR-E  ’ — LAMARCK  AND  ST.  HILAIRE 
— CUVIER  AND  PALEONTOLOGY  ....  5 

II. 

* VESTIGES  OF  THE  NATURAL  HISTORY  OF  CREATION,’ 

AND  THE  THEORY  OF  DEVELOPMENT  . . lO 

III. 

MR.  DARWIN,  AND  ‘THE  ORIGIN  OF  SPECIES  BY 

NATURAL  SELECTION  ’ I3 

IV. 

MR.  HERBERT  SPENCER  AND  ‘EVOLUTION’ — THE  SYN- 
THETIC PHILOSOPHY — MR.  DARWIN’s  REJECTION 
OF  ‘FINAL  CAUSES  ’ — THE  GERMAN  PHILOSOPHERS  18 

V. 

TRUTH  OF  THE  EVOLUTION  THEORY  CHALLENGED  ; 

vii 


AND  ITS  ABSURDITIES  EXHIBITED 


25 


Vlll 


TABLE  OF  CONTENTS. 


V^I. 

PAGB 

MR.  DARWINS  THEORY  OF  ‘SEXUAL  SELECTION* — 

ITS  IRREVERENCE  TOWARDS  THE  GREAT  MAKER 
— ^VERY  DIFFERENT  THINKINGS  OF  OTHER  IN- 
TELLECTUAL MEN 34 

VII. 

* THE  REIGN  OF  LAW  * — A WORD  ABOUT  ‘ USELESS 
ORGANS* — MR.  DARWIN’S  FORGETFULNESS  OF 
THE  FORESIGHT  EVIDENT  IN  GOD*S  CREATION  38 

VIII. 

HAECKEL  AND  THE  PLASTIDULIC  SOUL — PESSIMISM 
IN  GERMANY  — NECESSITARIAN  TEACHING  OF 
PROFESSOR  TYNDALL,  AND  ITS  RUINOUS  TEN- 
DENCY • 


EVOLUT  ION. 


IF  some  of  our  honoured  forefathers  could 
awake  from  the  dead,  and  tread  again  the  soil 
of  this  dear  old  England  that  they  loved  so  much, 
they  would,  doubtless,  feel  great  amazement, 
mingled  with  exultant  pride,  when  they  beheld  our 
commercial,  industrial,  and  scientific  progress.  If 
the  great  men  of  the  age  of  Elizabeth  could  be 
joined  with  the  great  men  of  our  Commonwealth 
period,  and  look  upon  their  native  land  as  it  exists 
now,  with  its  advancing  civilisation, — one  cannot 
help  thinking  that  the  illustrious  band  of  our  great 
forefathers,  which  we  have  named,  would  raise 
hand  and  heart  towards  heaven,  and  say,  with  one 
voice,  “ Thank  God,  for  what  He  has  done  for  Old 
England  ! and  long  may  the  dear  old  land  prosper 
and  flourish  I ” 


I 


2 


THOUGHTS  OF  OUR  FOREFATHERS. 


But  Others  might  be  named  of  our  revered  and 
honoured  forefathers  who,  if  they  could  live  again, 
would  experience  very  different  emotions,  on  learn- 
ing the  nature  of  some  great  changes  that  mark 
our  day.  If  the  martyrs  who  were  burned,  in  the 
reign  of  Mary,  for  their  attachment  to  Protestant 
truth,  could  rise,  and  witness  the  spread  of  Ritualism 
and  Popery  among  us,  we  are  sure  that  it  would 
distress  them  greatly.  And,  if  the  founders  of  the 
Royal  Society — Sir  Christopher  Wren,  and  the 
Hon.  Robert  Boyle,  and  John  Ray,  the  author  of 
that  good  old  book  The  Wisdom  of  God  in  the 
Creation,”  and  their  associates,  could  live  again, 
and  be  joined  by  our  illustrious  Newton — such 
truly  reverential  men  could  not  fail  to  express  their 
deep  mortification  and  sorrow,  at  the  perverse 
attempt  of  so  many  scientific  men  of  our  time,  to 
revive  the  Atheistic  philosophy  of  the  worst  schools 
of  ancient  Greece. 

The  men  who  are  considered  to  be  the  leaders 
in  Science  of  the  present  day  make  it  no  secret 
that  they  throw  the  Design  Argument,  or  Doctrine 
of  Final  Causes,  to  the  winds.  They  tell  us, 
without  concealment,  that  they  have  ‘done  with 


SCEPTICISM  OF  OUR  OWN  DAY. 


teleology  ’ — for  they  can  discern  no  proof  of  design, 
or  contrivance,  or  purpose,  either  in  the  living  or 
inorganic  world.  They  maintain  that  what  we 
deem  to  be  evidences  of  design  and  contrivance 
and  purpose  in  Nature — and,  therefor#;  proofs  of 
the  existence  of  the  Creator — are,  simply,  the  out- 
come and  result  of  the  action  of  the  unconscious 
and  eternal  forces  of  matter.  It  is,  they  affirm,  by 
the  unconscious  action  of  these  forces,  that  the 
molecules  and  atoms  of  matter  came  to  take  their 
present  forms.  It  may  be  very  agreeable  employ- 
ment for  our  emotional  nature,  Professor  Tyndall 
thinks,  to  be  religious ; but  science,  he  assures  us, 
teaches  him  no  religion,  and  reveals  to  him  no 
personal  God.  A personal  God  is  unthinkable, 
says  Herbert  Spencer.  And  other  scientific  men 
do  not  conceal  from  us  that  they  have  similar 
convictions. 

All  this,  be  it  remembered,  is  new^  in  our  country. 
In  the  past  time,  when  Hobbes  and  HuAie,  and 
some  lesser  men,  intellectually,  were  busy  in  sowing 
the  seeds  of  Unbelief,  they  were  not  countenanced, 
but  opposed,  by  contemporary  Englishmen  who 
were  foremost  in  scientific  enquiry  and  discovery. 


4 


SCEPTICISM  OF  OUR  OWN  DAY. 


Noi  did  the  sceptical  plague  which  afflicted  France 
in  her  great  revolutionary  struggle  extend  its  con- 
tagion to  the  scientific  mind  of  this  land.  Well- 
nigh  half  of  this  our  Nineteenth  Century  was  past 
before  the  English  public  became  aware,  by  the  ten- 
tative issue  of  what  were  deemed,  at  first,  ‘ curious 
speculations  in  Natural  History,’  that  some  of  our 
students  and  professors  of  Science  were  bent  on 
the  promulgation  of  views  which  must  tend  to  the 
subversion  of  both  Natural  and  Revealed  Religion. 

Since  the  history  of  these  ^ curious  speculations  ’ 
is  the  history  of  the  Theory  of  Evolution,  it  will, 
now,  be  my  duty  to  set  it  before  you  in  as  concise 
and  lucid  a manner  as  possible.  A few  words, 
however,  must  first  be  said  on  what  already  passed 
in  France. 


L 


DE  MAILLET  AND  HIS  THEORY — LINN^US  AND  HIS 
‘SYSTEMA  naturae’ — LAMARCK  AND  ST.  HILAIRE 
— CUVIER  AND  PALEONTOLOGY. 

IN  the  year  1748,  a French  writer,  named  De 
Maillet,  tried  to  persuade  his  fellow-country- 
men that  plants  and  animals  were  not  special 
creations  of  God,  but  only  spontaneously  modified 
forms  of  ‘ Nature.’  The  influence  of  the  beautiful 
and  reverential  spirit  of  Linnaeus  preserved  men  of 
science  from  adopting  De  Maillet’s  theory;  and 
the  French  public,  of  that  period,  only  treated  it 
with  ridicule. 

In  the  early  part  of  this,  our  nineteenth  century, 
three  remarkable  Frenchmen  may  be  said  to  have 
created  a new  era  in  Natural  History : Lamarck, 
who  took  up  the  theory  maintained  by  De  Maillet, 
and  maintained  the  doctrine  of  ^ Transmutation  of 
Species  ’ — Geoffrey  St.  Hilaire,  who  leaned  to  the 
notions  of  Lamarck — and  Cuvier,  that  greatest  of 
all  zoologists,  who,  like  Linnaeus,  maintained  the 
truth  of  the  Design  Argument,  and  that  all  de- 
criptions  of  living  beings  are  the  special  creation 


6 


LAMARCK'S  BOLD  THEORY  OF  THE 


of  God.  Lamarck  had  made  the  lowest  animal 
forms  his  special  study — such  as  the  sponges,  the 
jelly-fishes,  the  corallines  and  other  zoophytes, 
and  the  shell  fish;  and  the  likeness  among  them 
seemed,  to  him,  to  show  that  one  animal  form  had 
passed  into  another,  and  that  higher  animal  forms 
had  been  ‘ transmuted  ’ out  of  lower  forms.  His 
friend,  Geofiroy  St.  Hilaire,  inclined  to  take  the 
same  view,  from  his  close  observance  of  what  is 
called  ‘ Homology,’  or  the  close  resemblance  of 
all  the  vertebrate  animals,  in  the  general  plan  of 
their  construction — a resemblance,  by  the  way, 
which  our  own  countryman,  the  illustrious  John 
Hunter,  was  wont  strongly  to  insist  upon. 

Lamarck  contended  that  the  exertion  of  their 
desires  was  a great  cause  of  the  difference  in  the 
forms  of  some  animals.  He  instanced  the  Swan 
and  the  Giraffe,  as  proofs  of  his  doctrine  of 
“ Transmutation  of  Species.”  The  progenitors  of 
these  creatures,  he  contended,  had  as  short  necks 
as  other  creatures ; but,  by  the  exertion  of  the 
bird  to  get  food  at  the  bottom  of  a stream,  and 
of  the  beast  to  gather  leaves  from  high  trees  in  the 
barren  seasons  of  a torrid  clime — the  twain  had 


TRANSMUTATION  OF  SPECIES. 


7 


lengthened  their  own  necks,  in  the  process,  it 
might  be,  of  many  hundreds  of  thousands  of  years. 
So  also,  he  thought,  the  grallatores,  or  wading- 
birds, — such  as  the  Crane  and  the  Heron, — have 
lengthened  their  own  legs,  by  persistency  in  going 
deep  into  the  water,  for  their  prey ; and  the  swim- 
ming-birds have  originated  th^  webs  between  their 
toes,  by  persistent  attempts  at  swimming — also,  in 
the  process  of  unreckonable  years. 

Cuvier  threw  all  his  strength  into  the  opposite 
views.  He  had,  early,  been  a diligent  student 
of  human  anatomy,  and  had  extended  his  studies 
to  the  anatomy  of  the  lower  animals.  He  thus 
reached  a firm  conviction,  which  was  never  shaken, 
that  there  was  supremely  intelligent  picrpose  in  all 
the  creation.  The  fact  that  every  animal  was 
fitted  to  get  its  own  living,  and  to  take  care  of 
itself  and  its  Species ; — that  one  part  of  an  animal 
was  so  evidently  adapted  to  the  other  parts,  that 
seeing  a part  of  an  animal — a bone,  or  a tooth, — 
he  could  judge  of  what  species  or  family  the  animal 
was — seemed  conclusive  evidence  to  Cuvier  that 
God  had  separately  and  specially  created  each 
animal  race,  upon  the  earth 


8 


GENIUS  AND  SKILL  OF  CUVIER. 


He  remodelled  the  system  of  Linnaeus,  with  a 
bold  but  reverent  hand  ; and,  in  doing  this,  he 
assigned  the  elephant,  rhinoceros,  hippopotamus, 
tapir,  swine,  horse,  zebra,  ass,  and  a few  othei 
animals,  into  a separate  order:  the  ‘Pachyder- 
mata,’  or  thick-skinned  animals.  Pondering  on 
the  fact  that  they  ^were  so  few  in  number,  he 
thought  there  must  have  been  more  of  them  at  one 
period ; and  then,  guided  by  his  profound  skill 
in  Osteology,  or  the  science  of  the  bones,  he  dis- 
cerned that  there  were  spaces — so  to  speak — 
between  several  of  the  species  composing  this  order 
of  the  Pachydermata,  for  other  species  of  such  and 
such  a form.  Shall  we  call  it  prophecy,  when  he 
said  such  animals  might  be  found  ? No : it  was 
true  scie7ice  derived  from  an  intelligent  and  devoted 
study  of  the  Creator’s  plans — for  the  petrifactions 
of  the  very  creatures  he  had  described,  from  wise 
and  skilful  foresight,  were,  soon  after,  found,  in  the 
gypsum  quarries  of  Montmartre,  outside  Paris; 
and  he  had  the  gratifying  task  of  arranging  them, 
for  the  Museum,  with  his  own  hands. 

Cuvier,  by  thus  founding  the  sub-science  of 
Palaeontology  (or  discourse  of  ancient  animals) 


CUVIER  FOUNDS  PALEONTOLOGY. 


9 


may  be  considered  as  the  real  founder  of  Geology; 
for  that  great  science,  by  his  discoveries,  grew"  into 
real  importance  in  the  eyes  of  men  of  science. 
Cuvier’s  name  not  only  became  the  great  name  in 
zoology  but  all  the  elder  geologists  of  our  own 
country, — Buckland,  Sedgwick,  and  the  rest — 
ranged  themselves  under  his  banner,  as  believers 
in  ‘ Final  Causes,’  or  the  doctrine  of  separate  and 
special  creations.  It  was  otherwise  in  Germany. 
Goethe  had  already  given  hints  that  he  suspected 
a derivation  of  man  from  the  animals  ; and  Oken 
and  the  Physiophilosophers  had  broached  views 
utterly  unlike  those  of  Linnaeus  and  Cuvier.  But 
it  was  not  known,  until  the  year  1844,  that  the 
theory  of  Lamarck  had  any  real  disciples  in 
England. 


2 


10 


CURIOSITY  ABOUT  ‘VESTIGES.’ 


II. 

# 

* VESTIGES  OF  THE  NATURAL  HISTORY  OF  CREATION  * 
AND  THE  THEORY  OF  DEVELOPMENT. 

IN  that  year,  a book  of  a popular  character 
was  published,  which  may  be  said  to  have 
startled  all  sorts  of  people,  scientific  and  unscien- 
tific. It  was  entitled  ‘ Vestiges  of  the  Natural 
History  of  Creation.^  I went  from  Stafford  prison 
to  live  in  London,  and  commence  authorship,  in 
the  year  after  that  in  which  this  book  was  published ; 
and  shall  not  soon  forget  the  excitement  there  was 
among  literary  people,  about  this  book.  ‘ Have 
you  read  the  Vestiges  ? ’ — ‘ What  do  you  think  of 
the  Vestiges  ? ’ — was  asked  on  every  side.  Who 
wrote  the  book — was  a profound  secret;  and  for 
aught  I know,  it  is  a secret  yet.  Robert  Chambers 
of  Edinburgh  was  loudly  charged  with  its  author- 
ship; but  denied  it.  Dr.  Neil  Arnott,  and  other 


MR.  CROSSE,  AND  THE  ‘ACARUS.*  II 

scientific  men, — and  even  Lord  Byron’s  daughter, 
Ada,  the  Countess  of  Lovelace, — were  also  charged 
with  the  authorship  of  the  ‘Vestiges* — but  all 
denied  it.  Of  course  the  book  had  an  author; 
but  I am  not  able  to  tell  you  his  name.  In  this 
book,  what  is  called  the  ‘ Development  Theory 
was  openly  maintained.  Unlike  Lamarck,  who 
was  an  atheist,  this  author,  with  expressions  of 
reverence,  acknowledged  the  existence  of  the  Crea- 
tor ; and  maintained  that  this  theory  of  the  ‘ deve- 
lopment * of  one  plant  out  of  another,  and  of  one 
animal  out  of  another,  in  conformity  with  a divinely 
appointed  law  of  advancing  improvement,  was  as 
worthy  an  idea  of  the  Almighty  Maker’s  way  of 
creating,  as  our  common  idea  of  special  and  sepa- 
rate creations. 

‘ Equivocal  ’ or  ‘ Spontaneous  * Generation,  how- 
ever, seemed  to  be  an  article  in  the  belief  of  the 
author  of  the  ‘ Vestiges.*  Some  of  you  may  be  old 
enough  to  remember  the  noise  that  was  made, 
about  that  time,  concerning  the  experiments  of 
Mr.  Crosse,  in  electricity  and  galvanism.  It  was 
affirmed  that  Mr.  Crosse  had  made  an  insect,  and 
it  was  proposed  to  call  it  the  ‘ Acarus  Crossii,*  in 


12 


DECLINE  OF  THE  ‘ VESTIGES/ 


honour  of  its  scientific  maker ! Poor  Mr.  Crosse 
publicly  avowed  his  utter  innocence  of  any  such 
creation,  and  affirmed  he  had  seen  the  ‘ Acarus  ’ in 
question  many  a time  before  he  beheld  it  in  the  alka- 
line solution  made  use  of  in  his  galvanic  experiment. 
It  was  said  he  gave  up  his  study  and  his  experi- 
ments, in  disgust  with  the  use  which  had  been  made 
of  his  name.  But  Mr.  Weekes  took  up  the  study ; 
and  his  experiments  were  understood  to  strengthen 
the  advocates  of  ‘Spontaneous  Generation.*  The 
author  of  the  ‘ Vestiges  * evidently  inclined  to 
their  side;  and,  very  soon,  some  of  the  reviews 
declared  that  he  was  only  a concealed  atheist. 
Indeed,  so  little  apparent  encouragement  was 
given  to  the  ‘Development*  hypothesis  by  the 
press  and  the  public,  and  so  slight  patronage 
seemed  to  favour  it  from  men  of  science,  that  it 
was  supposed  we  should  soon  hear  no  more  of  it 


MR.  DARWIN  AND  MR.  WALLACE. 


13 


HI. 

MR.  CHARLES  DARWIN,  AND  ‘ THE  ORIGIN  OF 
SPECIES  BY  NATURAL  SELECTION.’ 

But,  on  the  I St  of  July,  1858,  two  papers 
were  produced  for  reading  before  the  Linnsean 
Society,  on  the  ‘Origin  of  Species,’  one  written 
by  Mr.  Charles  Darwin,  and  the  other  by  Mr. 
Alfred  Wallace.  They  were  both  naturalists  of 
some  fame.  Mr.  Wallace  had  contributed  to  our 
knowledge  of  animated  nature  in  Malacca  and 
the  islands  of  the  Indian  Archipelago;  and  Mr. 
Darwin,  by  his  charming  book,  ‘ A Naturalist’s 
Voyage  round  the  World,’  and  other  services  to 
science,  had  won  high  reputation.  Mr.  Wallace, 
aware  of  the  long  and  large  preparations  made  by 
Mr.  Darwin,  gave  up  to  him  the  task  of  intro- 
ducing their  similar  ideas  to  the  public ; and,  in 
November,  1859,  Mr.  Darwin’s  book  appeared, 


14  MEANING  OF  ‘NATURAL  SELECTION.’ 

announcing  the  theory  which  has  made  so  much 
noise  in  the  world  : ‘ The  Origin  of  Species,  by 
Natural  Selection.* 

Some  of  us  opened  the  book  with  indescribable 
curiosity,  for  the  latter  part  of  its  title  led  us  to 
wonder  what  the  author  could  mean.  Selection^  of 
any  kind,  we  reflected,  must  be  an  intelligent  pro- 
cess  : it  could  only  be  the  action  of  mind.  But 
what  could  be  meant  by  Natural  Selection  ? We 
found  that  in  his  first  chapter,  under  the  general 
title  of  ‘ Variation  under  Domestication,*  the 
author  treated  of  what  he  called  ‘Selection  by 
Man ; * and  in  the  second  chapter,  under  the 
general  head  of  ‘ Variation  under  Nature,*  he 
introduced  us  to  his  theory  of  ‘ Natural  Selection,* 
— but  showed  us  more  fully  what  he  meant  in  his 
third  chapter,  which  was  entitled  * Struggle  for 
Existence.* 

This  struggle  for  existence — this  battle  of  life — 
Mr.  Darwin  contends,  is  perpetually  going  on, 
both  among  plants  and  animals, — for  every  kind 
of  plant  and  animal  tends  to  increase  so  rapidly, 
that  if  every  seed  which  falls  to  the  earth  were  to 
grow,  and  every  animal  which  is  born  were  to  live. 


MEANING  OF  ‘NATURAL  SELECTION.’ 


15 


there  would  soon  be  neither  plants  nor  animals. 
In  the  struggle  for  existence,  continued  life  is 
secured  for  the  plants  and  animals  which  are  best 
able  to  maintain  themselves  in  existence.  A 
stronger  plant  exhausts  the  soil,  and  thus  annihi- 
lates the  plant  which  is  weaker.  If,  in  a nest  ’of 
half  a dozen  young  birds,  two  have  longer  and 
stronger  wings,  claws,  and  bills  than  the  others, 
and  this  pair  of  birds  breed,  they  will  stand  a 
better  chance  of  life  than  weaker  birds — especially 
if  there  comes  a scarcity — because  they  can  fly 
farther,  and  will  have  more  strength  to  get  food. 

Again,  the  colour  of  certain  birds  gives  them  a 
better  chance  of  life.  Our  grouse  and  partridge 
would  soon  disappear  altogether  if  they  were  birds 
of  bright  colours ; but  because  they  resemble  the 
colour  of  the  soil  and  vegetation  amidst  which 
they  live,  they  are  neither  annihilated  by  the  guns 
of  sportsmen  nor  by  the  ravages  of  creatures  of 
prey.  On  the  other  hand,  the  white  grouse,  or 
ptarmigan,  is  comparatively  secure  in  Norway, 
because  it  is  of  the  colour  of  the  snow.  So,  also, 
insects  which  are  preyed  upon  by  birds  are  pre- 
served the  more  easily  by  being  of  the  colour  of 


l6  MR.  DARWIN  DEMANDS  TIME. 

the  leaves  or  stalks  of  plants.  This  is  not  * Design/ 
— it  is  ‘ Natural  Selection.’ 

A few  more  words  will  enable  you  completely  to 
understand  what  Mr.  Darwin  really  means  by  his 
doctrine  of  the  Origin  of  Species  by  Natural  Selec- 
tion. “ Like  produces  like,”  as  we  commonly  say. 
But  we  all  know  that,  in  the  production  of  plants 
and  animals,  we  constantly  see  degrees  of  unlike- 
ness. Now  Mr.  Darwin  contends  that  the  tendency 
to  produce  unlikeness  is  sufficient  to  account  for 
all  the  different  plants  and  animals  which  have 
ever  come  into  existence.  Only,  he  demands 
unlimited  time.  Hundreds  of  years,  or  hundreds 
of  thousands  of  years,  are  not  sufficient : he  must 
have  millions  of  years.  And  then,  he  maintains, 
it  is  perfectly  possible  that  all  the  known  classes, 
orders,  genera,  families,  and  species,  of  both  plants 
and  animals,  may  have  come  to  exist  by  one  varia- 
tion— however  small — being  added  to  another,  and 
that  to  another,  and  so  on. 

Nay,  he  contends,  that  not  only  the  forms  and 
changes  of  physical  structure  in  animals,  but  even 
their  degrees  of  instinct  and  intelligence,  and  their 
propensities  and  habits,  have  grown  by  Natural 


THINKS  WE  COME  OUT  OF  APES 


17 


Selection.  As  for  man,  Mr.  Darwin  maintains 
that  he  is  descended  from  a hairy  quadruped  with 
a tail  and  pointed  ears,  that  was  accustomed  to 
live  in  trees.  He  means  that  we  come  out  of  the 
apes  and  monkeys.  Lastly,  he  believes  that  our 
moral  nature — our  highest  nature — is  derived  from 
the  lower  animals;  for  “the  dog  manifests  love, 
reverence,  fidelity,  and  obedience ; ” and  so  the 
religious  sentiment  in  man  comes  by  Natural 
Selection,  as  well  as  his  physical  form  or  animal 
nature. 


i8 


MR.  Darwin's  first  converts. 


IV. 


MR.  HERBERT  SPENCER  AND  ‘ EVOLUTION  ’ — THE 
SYNTHETIC  PHILOSOPHY — MR.  DARWIN'S  RE- 
JECTION OF  ‘final  causes' — THE  GERMAN 
PHILOSOPHERS. 

MONG  the  first  men  of  science  to  declare 


^ ^ their  acceptance  of  Mr.  Darwin's  theory, 
were  Professor  Huxley,  and  the  present  President 
of  the  Royal  Society,  Sir  Joseph  Hooker,  who 
superintends  the  great  botanical  collections  at 
Kew,  and  who  has  contributed  so  richly  to  our 
knowledge  of  the  plants  of  India.  But  the  es- 
pousal of  Mr.  Darwin’s  theory  by  Mr.  Herbert 
Spencer  was  more  notable  than  the  conversion  to 
it  of  any  of  the  men  of  science.  Mr.  Darwin  calls 
him  ‘ our  great  philosopher,'  and  Professor 
Tyndal  calls  him  ‘ the  apostle  of  the  understand- 
ing ; ' and  some  are  bold  enough  to  affirm  that 


HIS  GREAT  CONVERT,  MR.  SPENCER. 


19 


Mr.  Herbert  Spencer  knows  everythmg — nay,  it  is 
said  that  he  himself  thinks  so ! You  laugh  ! but 
consider  what  an  advantage  such  a conceit  gives 
a man  with  the  majority  of  mankind.  Who  be- 
lieves you  to  be  clever,  if  you  tell  people  you 
know  nothing  ? 

Mr.  Darwin  was  mightily  gratified,  no  doubt, 
when  Mr.  Spencer  avowed  his  discipleship ; but 
the  disciple  soon  chid  the  master,  and  told  him 
he  had  attributed  too  much  to  ‘ Natural  Selec- 
tion.’ Mr.  Spencer’s  enlightened  conviction  was 
that  we  must  admit  Lamarck’s  theory  of  the 
Transmutation  of  Species,  and  the  Development 
theory  of  the  ‘Vestiges,’  as  well;  and  having 
Laplace’s  Cosmical  Theory  to  start  with,  we  must 
call  this  grand  compound  of  theories — Evolution. 
It  is  Mr.  Spencer’s  word,  remember,  not  Mr. 
Darwin’s ; and  Mr.  Darwin’s  meaning,  by  the 
term  ‘ Natural  Selection  ’ is  better  expressed, 
Mr.  Spencer  contends,  by  the  phrase  ‘ Survival  of 
the  Fittest.’  Of  course,  you  will  expect  that  the 
* Apostle  of  the  Understanding  ’ is  a most  prolific 
and  superb  comer  of  words  and  phrases.  His 
crowning  work,  however,  has  not  yet  been  men- 


20 


MR.  SPENCER,  AND  * EVOLUTION.* 


tioned.  Mr.  Herbert  Spencer  has  undertaken  the 
creation  of  what  is  considered  to  be  an  entirely 
new  system  of  philosophy,  w^hich  he  terms — ‘ The 
Synthetic ; ’ and  it  is  from  him  that  we  are  to 
learn,  fully,  what  is  meant  by  ‘ Evolution.’ 

We  are  to  start  with  the  Cosmical  or  Nebular 
Theory  of  Laplace : the  existence  of  the  nebu- 
losity— the  hot,  luminous  nebulosity  of  the  atoms 
and  molecules  of  matter  which  the  author  of  the 
‘Vestiges’  called  “the  revolving  fire- mist,”  out  of 
which — as  it  contracted,  and  the  outer  part  cooled, 
and  threw  off  rings, — the  planets  of  our  solar  sys- 
tem, and,  finally,  the  sun  itself,  were  formed.  We 
are  to  regard  our  earth  as  having  been  formed 
from  one  of  these  rings.  And  now,  how  did  life 
begin  upon  it  ? When  the  hot  nucleus  of  our 
earth  had  cooled  so  far  that  some  of  the  cosmic 
vapour  surrounding  it  had  taken  the  form  of  water, 
there  w^ould  come  about  that  great  change  which 
Professor  Phillips,  the  geologist,  used  to  describe : 
the  forming  of  fissures  in  the  earth’s  surface,  by 
shrinkage,  and  the  entrance  of  water  into  the 
fissures ; and  thus,  by  ^the  force  of  steam,  the 
breaking  up  of  the  earth’s  crust  into  rocks  and 


MR.  DARWIN'S  VIEWS  OF  HIMSELF. 


21 


seas — into  land  and  water.  Life,  we  are  allowed 
to  believe,  began  in  the  water : vegetable  life  and 
animal  life.  Portions — most  likely  microscopic 
portions — of  sea-mucus,  or  sea-jelly,  began  to  live  ; 
and  thus  vegetable  and  animal  life  was  begun  ! 

— But  begun  howV  you  will  ask.  I can  only 
reply,  somehow — for  I know  not  what  other  answer 
to  give,  or  by  what  other  plain  word  to  describe 
what,  in  scientific  gibberish,  they  call  ‘ Sponta- 
neous Generation.’  “ A personal  God  is  unthink- 
able^' says  Mr.  Herbert  Spencer:  if  any  power 
have  originated  the  universe,  he  declares  it  must 
be  an  unconscious  power.  Mr.  Darwin,  in  the 
announcement  of  his  theory  of  the  ^Origin  of 
Species,’  speaks  of  ‘the  Creator’ — but  without 
any  expression  of  reverence — as  having  given 
existence  to  a few  forms  of  life,  or — ^he  afterwards 
says — to  one  primordial  form,  from  which  all  other 
forms,  vegetable  and  animal,  have  been  developed 
by  natural  selection : plants,  worms,  insects, 
fishes,  reptiles,  birds,  four-footed  creatures,  and 
Man,  And,  in  the  last  chapter  of  the  ‘ Origin  of 
Species,’  he  tells  us  that  he  sees  no  good  reason 
why  theviews  given  in  his  volume  should  shock 


22 


DARWIN  REJECTS  DR.  GRAY’s  VIEWS. 


the  religious  feelings  of  any  one.  And  he,  further, 
tells  us  that  ‘ a celebrated  author  and  divine  * 
had  written  to  him  to  say  that  “he  had  gradually 
learnt  to  see  that  it  is  just  as  noble  a conception 
of  the  Deity  to  believe  that  He  created  a few 
original  forms  capable  of  self-development  into 
other  and  needful  forms,  as  to  believe  that  He 
required  a fresh  act  of  creation  to  supply  the 
voids  caused  by  the  action  of  His  laws.” 

Dr.  Asa  Gray,  the  great  botanist  of  America, 
also  declared  himself  a convert  to  the  doctrine  of 
Evolution,  but  holding  fast  by  the  doctrine  of 
Final  Causes,  said  God  had  guided  the  variation 
of  plants  and  animals  “ along  certain  beneficial 
lines  ” just  as  man  guides  water  “ along  definite 
and  useful  lines  of  irrigation.”  But  Mr.  Darwin 
rejected  Dr.  Gray’s  conclusion,  and  denied  that 
“ the  formation  of  the  most  perfectly  adapted 
animals  in  the  world,  man  included,  were  inten- 
tionally and  specially  guided.” 

It  was  not  long  before  the  German  philosophers, 
who  had  adopted  Mr.  Darwin’s  views,  turned 
round  upon  him,  and  showed  him  the  real  atheism 
there  is  in  his  scheme.  Carl  Vogt  boldly  told 


HOW  GERMANY  RECEIVES  DARWIN. 


23 


him  that  his  theory  “ turns  the  Creator  out  of 
doors,  and  does  not  leave  the  smallest  room  for 
the  agency  of  such  a Being.”  “ The  first  living 
germ  being  granted,”  Carl  Vogt  goes  on  to  say, 

the  process  of  Evolution  will  account  for  all  we 
see.  Man  is  not  a special  creation,  produced  in 
a different  way,  and  distinct  from  other  animals, 
endowed  with  an  individual  soul  and  animated  by 
the  breath  of  God ; on  the  contrary,  man  is  only 
the  highest  product  of  the  progressive  evolution  of 
animal  life  springing  from  the  group  of  apes  next 
below  him.” 

And  Carl  Vogt  only  speaks  out  in  bolder  lan- 
guage what  many  of  his  countrymen  say  of  Mr. 
Darwin’s  theory.  Haeckel,  who  is  considered  the 
chief  naturalist  of  Germany,  also  announces  athe- 
ism ; and  Mr.  Darwin,  in  his  ‘ Descent  of  Man,^ 
claims  Haeckel’s  kinship  in  science,  and  declares 
that  if  the  German’s  book  had  been  published 
earlier,  his  own  might  not  have  been  written  : thus 
seeming  to  endorse  Haeckel’s  doctrines.  ‘ Evolu- 
tion,’ from  the  showing  of  its  chief  disciples,  thus 
leaves  us  to  gross  materialism,  the  denial  of  the 
design  argument,  and  of  God’s  existence.  Matter 


24 


CONSEQUENCES  OF  EVOLUTION. 


is  eternal,  and  its  forces  are  eternal.  The  material 
universe  has  always  existed ; but  God  has  never 
existed.  Christianity  is  only  a dream  : there  is  no 
soul : there  is  no  future  state  : this  is  our  only  exist- 
ence : when  we  die,  we  pass  into  annihilation. 

I learn  that  some  of  you  young  men  imagine  it 
is  very  wise  to  become  Evolutionists,  and  that  you 
can  retain  your  belief  as  Christians,  at  the  same 
time.  Then,  I assure  you,  you  must  have  a dif- 
ferent set  of  ideas  from  Mr.  Darwin^s.  So  you  will 
find  it  to  be — only  think,  a little. 


WANT  OF  FACTS  FOR  ‘EVOLUTION/ 


25 


V. 


TRUTH  OF  THE  EVOLUTION  THEORY  CHALLENGED  ; 
AND  ITS  ABSURDITIES  EXHIBITED. 

UT  where  are  the  facts  ? ” you  will  be  say- 


ing;  and  that  is  speaking  English.  The 
facts  are  what  we  demand,  before  we  accept  any 
theory.  That  is  the  great  lesson  taught  us  by 
Newton  and  Bacon ; and  we  shall  not  depart  from 


it.  But  neither  Mr.  Darwin,  nor  Professors  Huxley 
and  Tyndall,  nor  Mr.  Herbert  Spencer,  nor  Carl 
yVogt,  nor  Haeckel,  dare  to  assure  us  that  Evolution 
V is  ever  witnessed  now,  or  has  ever  been  witnessed 


in  the  past.  {So  that  JJiere  are~ho  fdctsry 


“Oh,  sir,  you  don’t  understand  what  you  are 
talking  about,”  some  of  the  more  confident  parti- 
sans of  the  theory  will  say:  “read  Mr.  Darwin’s 
book  with  clearer  discernment.  He  tells  you, 
what  every  botanist  will  tell  you,  that  there  are 


3 


26 


MR.  DARWIN^S  EXPLANATION 


forty  different  kinds  of  wild  brambles  and  twenty 
different  kinds  of  wild  roses ; and  yet  the  brambles 
have,  doubtless,  originated  with  one  kind,  and  the 
wild  roses  have  all  come  out  of  the  Rosa  canina^ 
or  common  Dog-rose.  The  insects  have  done  it 
all  by  inoculation.  Mr.  Darwin — who  has  paid 
very  special  and  laborious  attention  to  pigeon- 
breeding— will  also  assure  you  that  there  are  three 
hundred  and  forty  kinds  of  tame  pigeons  ; and  that 
there  can  be  no  doubt  that  they  have  all  originated 
with  the  common  Blue  Rock  pigeon : now  that 
kind  of  pigeon  has  but  fourteen  feathers  in  its  tail, 
while  the  Fantail  pigeon  has  often  forty  ! ! ! 

^Then  think  of  the  various  breeds  of  dogs : 
there  is  the  terrier,  the  ladies’  lap  dog,  the  King 
Charles’s  dog,  the  pointer,  the  retriever,  the  mastiff, 
the  bloodhound,  the  Newfoundland  dog,  the  noble 
St.  Bernard’s  dog,  the  elegant  fleet  greyhound,  and 
that  thoroughly  English  dog — the  bull-dog,  which 
seizes  the  bull  by  the  nose,  and  never  leaves  go ! 
Doubtless,  they  have  also  originated  with  one 
stock ” 

“Nay,”  says  Mr.  Darwin  himself,  “I  think  they 
must  be  derived  from  three  or  four  stocks.”  “Quite 


AND  DEFENCE  OF  HIS  THEORY. 


27 


a mistake/’  say  some ; “ the  dog  is  certainly  derived 
from  the  wolf.”  ‘‘Nay,  from  the  jackal,”  says 
another ; while  some  positively  affirm  that  the 
common  shepherd’s  dog  is  the  original  animal,  and 
all  other  dogs  are  derived  from  ixjJ 

“ But,  think  again,”  say  the  Darwinians,  “ of  the 
power  man  has  to  alter  and  improve  the  breeds  of 
sheep  and  cattle  and  horses;  and  think  of  the 
power  their  increasing  knowledge  gives  to  our 
gardeners  to  furnish  us  with  superior  carrots  and 
turnips  and  lettuces  and  other  vegetables — with 
superior  plums  and  peaches  and  apples  and  pears — 
and  with  finer  and  more  variegated  flowers  ! ” 
Evolution  ! my  Darwinian  friends — you  have  not 
touched  it,  with  all  your  facts.  This  is  all  Variety: 
it  is  not  Evolution.  But  we  need  none  of  your 
petty  array  of  the  instances  of  Variety.  Variety  is 
the  stamp  and  seal  God  puts  upon  all  He  does 
in  Nature.  God  never  makes  two  creatures  alike 
of  any  kind.  His  patterns  vary  perpetually  and 
universally.  He  never  makes  two  flowers  alike  of 
any  kind : no  two  petals  in  the  corolla  of  any  one 
flower  are  alike  : no  two  sepals  in  the  calyx  of  any 
one  flower  are  alike : no  stamens  of  any  one  flower 


VARIETY  IS  NOT  EVOLUTION. 


are  alike : no  two  leaves  on  the  same  flower-stalk 
are  alike : no  two  sides  of  the  same  leaf  are  alike. 
No  two  insects,  birds,  beasts,  or  fishes  of  the  same 
kind  are  alike : no  two  human  beings  are  alike. 
No  two  hairs  of  the  human  head  were  ever  ex- 
amined under  a microscope  and  found  to  be  alike : 
no  two  human  faces  are  alike : no  two  chins  are 
alike  : no  two  noses  are  alike  : no  two  eyes  in  the 
same  face  are  alike. 

‘‘What,  sir!’'  exclaims  some  young  lady,  ‘Mo 
you  mean  to  insult  me  by  telling  me  that  I have 
two  odd  eyes  ? — for  shame  of  yourself,  sir  1 ” 

My  dear  young  lady,  your  eyes  may  be  as 
brilliant  as  diamonds — so  that  they  sometimes 
make  that  young  gentleman’s  heart  ache  but  they 
are  not  alike.  Do  but  examine  them,  courageously, 
in  your  looking-glass ; and  you  will  find  itfOut. 

Evolution  1 I say  again,  you  have  been  talking 
about  Variety — but  not  about  Evolution.  You 
know  of  no  gardener  who  can  evolve  an  apple- 
tree  out  of  a damask  rose,  or  a tulip  out  of  a 
hyacinth,  or  a dahlia  out  of  a marigold.  Can 
you  tell  us  of  any  man  who  has  ever  bred  a pigeon 
into  a jackdaw,  or  a jackdaw  into  a raven — a 


/ 


SENSIBLE  REBUKE  BY  VIRCHOW.  29 

sparrow  into  a sparrow-hawk,  a fantail  into  a 
pheasant,  a tumbler  into  a turkey — a greyhound 
into  a tiger — or  a bull-dog  into  a buffalo  ? Breed 
as  you  will,  your  pigeons  are  all  pigeons  still : you 
cannot  advance  them  into  hawks,  falcons,  or 
eagles.  Breed  as  you  will,  your  dogs  are  all  dogs 
still — and  they  will  all  go  to  the  dogs.  Where  are 
your  facts?  You  have  none;  and  so  your  theory 
must  remain  a theory. 

The  speech  of  Virchow — one  of  the  most  eminent 
men  in  Germany — lately  delivered  at  Munich,  at 
the  annual  meeting  of  Men  of  Science,  will,  it  is 
hoped,  tend  to  render  the  German  evolutionists  a 
little  more  modest,  and  teach  them  not  to  forget 
that  they  are,  after  all,  only  theorists.  Haeckel 
and  Nageli  proposed  that  they  should  now  claim  to 
have  the  direction  of  education  in  Germany,  and 
should  demand  to  have  the  new  doctrines  taught. 
Virchow  told  them  plainly  that  they  could  make 
no  such  demand.  “So  long,”  says  he,  “as  no 
one  can  define  for  me  the  properties  of  carbon, 
hydrogen,  oxygen,  and  nitrogen,  in  such  a way  that 
I can  conceive  how,  from  the  sum  of  them,  a soul 
arises,  so  long  am  I unable  to  admit  that  we  should 


30 


SENSIBLE  REBUKE  BY  VIRCHOW. 


be  at  all  justified  in  importing  the  plastidulic  soul 
into  the  course  of  our  education.  . . . On  the  con- 
trary, I am  of  opinion  that,  before  we  originate 
such  hypotheses  as  the  voice  of  science — before 
we  say  ‘ This  is  modern  science,’  we  should  first 
have  to  conduct  a long  series  of  careful  investiga- 
tions. We  must  therefore  say  to  the  teachers  in 
schools,  ‘ Do  not  teach  it,^ 

“As  a matter  of  fact,”  Virchow  also  tells  his 
brothers  in  science,  “ we  must  positively  recognize 
that  as  yet  there  always  exists  a sharp  line  of 
demarcation  between  man  and  the  ape.  We  can- 
not teach — 7ve  cannot  pronounce  it  to  be  a conquest  of 
science^  that  man  descends  from  the  ape  or  fi'om  any 
other  animalP  Such  are  the  clear  declarations 
made  by  one  of  the  leading  minds  of  Germany  ; 
such  is  his  honest  protest  against  concluding  that 
the  doctrines  of  Spontaneous  Generation  and  Evo- 
lution are  proven. 

One  does  not  wish  to  say  aught  disrespectful  of 
a man  like  Mr.  Darwin.  As  an  untiring  inspector 
of  Nature  and  collector  of  facts,  even  of  the 
minutest  description — in  other  words,  as  a diligent 
contributor  to  the  stores  of  human  knowledge,  Mr. 


HOW  DARWINISM  SPREAD  QUICKLY. 


31 


Darwin  deserves  honour;  but  he  seems  to  coax 
himself  into  the  belief  that  his  theory- be  true^y 
notwithstanding  all  the  difficulties — and  even  the 
unlikelihoods — he  confesses  that  he  sees  in  the 
way  of  such  belief. 

The  rapidity  with  which  Mr.  Darwin’s  theory 
was  spread,  applauded,  and  considered  to  be 
established,  must  be  regarded  as  one  of  the  most 
remarkable  facts  of  our  time.  But  it  is  not  difficult 
to  account  for  the  fact.  When  Mr.  Wallace 
yielded  to  Mr.  Darwin  the  priority  of  publication, 
it  was  understood  that  Mr.  Wallace  would  support 
his  friend.  A number  of  naturalists,  who  were 
common  friends  of  both,  also  threw  all  their 
strength  into  the  effort  to  popularise  the  theory. 
They  soon  secured  the  adhesion  and  active  services 
of  a number  of  understrappers — members  of  scien- 
tific societies,  and  workers  on  magazines,  reviews, 
and  newspapers.  As  for  the  chiefs — Mr.  Darwin 
himself.  Professors  Tyndall  and  Huxley,  Sir  Joseph 
Hooker,  and  Mr.  Herbert  Spencer — they  consti- 
tute what  the  shrewd  American  writer,  Wendell 
Holmes,  calls  ‘The  Mutual  Admiration  Society.' 
They  are  perpetually  bespattering  one  another  with 


32 


MR.  Darwin’s  fine  fancies. 


praise.  And  when  Mr.  Darwin  received  his  Doctor’s 
degree,  at  Cambridge,  in  the  congratulation-meeting 
held  afterwards  by  his  friends  and  admirers,  Pro- 
fessor Huxley  declared  that  Mr.  Darwin  was  “ the 
greatest  philosopher  since  Aristotle  ! ” 

This  ecstatic  laudation  is  a little  amusing,  when 
one  considers  some  items  of  Mr.  Darwin’s  philo- 
Sophy.  In  the  first  edition  of  his  ^Origin  of  Species,’ 
the  author  sagely  intimated  that  the  whale  might 
have  been  formed  by  ‘ Natural  Selection  ’ out  of  a 
Polar  bear  that  found  he  could  live,  as  the  whale 
now  lives,  by  swimming  about  with  his  mouth  open, 
and  swallowing  the  minute  creatures  that  come 
into  it ! Our  sage  philosopher — the  greatest  since 
Aristotle” — left  all  that  out  in  his  second  edition, 
and  it  has  never  appeared  since  ! 

One  cannot  help  wishing  that  Mr.  Darwin  had 
left  out  that  equally  marvellous  imagination  about 
the  formation  of  the  eye  by  ‘Natural  Selection. 
My  copy  of  the  book  is  one  of  the  ‘ 5th  thousand.’ 
At  page  186,  Mr.  Darwin,  who  rejects  the  doctrine 
of  Final  Causes,  or  Divine  Contrivance — but  who 
cannot  write  without  using  the  word  ^contrivance^ 
over  and  over  again — admits  that  “to  suppose 


MR.  DARWIN'S  STRANGE  EYE-THEORY.  33 

that  the  eye,  with  all  its  inimitable  contrivances 
for  adjusting  the  focus  to  different  distances,  for 
admitting  different  amounts  of  light,  and  for  the 
correction  of  spherical  and  chromatic  aberration, 
could  have  been  formed  by  Natural  Selection, 
seems,  I freely  confess,  absurd  in  the  highest 
degree  possible.’’  Yet,  he  goes  on  to  assure  us 
that  ‘ Reason  tells  him  ’ this  is  possible.  He  says 
“we  ought,  in  imagination,  to  take  a thick  layer 
of  transparent  tissue,  with  a nerve  sensitive  to 
light  beneath — [he  does  not  tell  us  where  he  gets 
this  nerve,  to  begin  with !] — and  then  suppose 
every  part  of  this  layer  to  be  continually  changing 
slowly  in  density,”  and  “ each  new  state  of  the 
instrument  to  be  multiplied  by  the  million,” — and 
thus,  in  “ millions  on  millions  of  years,”  he  thinks 
we  may  get  a most  excellent  eye ! Do  not,  any 
of  you,  think  me  harsh  when  I tell  you  that  when 
I first  read  this  passage  in  the  famous  ‘Origin  of 
Species,’  I could  not  help  saying  to  myself—*  If 
Mr.  Darwin  had  not  put  his  name  to  this,  should 
I not  Jiay£_concluded  that  it  was  writtea-in  a 
lunatic  asylum?* 


34 


MR.  DARWIN  AND  THE  BIRDS. 


VI. 

MR.  Darwin’s  theory  of  ‘sexual  selection’ — 
ITS  irreverence  towards  the  great  maker 
— very  different  thinkings  of  other 

INTELLECTUAL  MEN. 

Let  no  one  suppose  that  the  fine  fancies  of 
> ‘‘the  greatest  philosopher  since  Aristotle” 
are  bounded  by  his  marvellous  conception  of 
‘Natural  Selection.’  In  his  next  book  ‘The 
Descent  of  Man/  we  are  treated  with  a new  fancy : 
‘ Sexual  Selection.’  Mr.  Darwin’s  fertile  imagina- 
tion leads  him  to  believe  that  the  greater  strength 
of  male  animals,  and  the  several  other  advantages 
they  have  over  females,  are  really  owing  to  the 
preference  of  the  females.  And  our  fertile-brained 
pnilosopher  gives  us  two  hundred  pages  on  Sexual 
Selection  among  Birds,  wherein  he  assures  us  that 
the  brilliant  colours  and  adornments  of  many  of  the 


DISPLAYS  LITTLE  KNOWLEDGE  OF  ‘ THE  SEX/  35 

male  birds,  are  owing  to  the  taste  and  desire  of  the 
female  birds.  The  hen  desires  to  see  a fine  feather 
in  a cock’s  tail,  and  so  it  grows  there  ! The  pea- 
hen desires  and  loves  to  see  the  eye-pattern  and 
splendid  colours  in  the  peacock’s  tail,  and  so  they 
grow  there — generation  after  generation  ! 

The  great  philosopher  cannot  be  greatly  ac- 
quainted with  ‘ the  sex,’  or  he  would  have  never 
imagined  that  the  female  birds  have  taken  such  a 
stupid  delight  in  seeing  the  same  ornaments  of  the 
male  birds  for  thousands  of  years.  What!  have  all 
the  pea-hens,  for  thousands  of  years,  been  enraptured 
with  that  one  uniform  pattern  in  the  peacock’s  tail  ? 
The  stupid  creatures  1 had  we  worn  tails,  like 
peacocks,  the  ladies  would  have  demanded  a new 
pattern  every  month! 

Seriously,  this  is  not  mere  folly  on  the  part  of 
Mr.  Darwin  It  is  a denial  of  God’s  power,  and 
wisdom  perfections.  A correct  mind  cannot 

look  O - --  oeautiful  bird,  or  a beautiful  flower, 
without  reverencing  the  power  and  wisdom  of  God, 
in  their  formation.  MnJQaLwim  4^ies  that  God 
iajth£jreat  Artificer.  He  admits  no  design  of  the 
Almighty  in  Nature.  The  birds  have  beautiful 


36  JIEFINED  SENTIMENT  OF  W.  J.  FOX, 

colours  because  the  females  like  to  see  them,  he 
foolishly  imagines,  not  because  God  delights  in 
che  Beautiful. 

I must  tell  you  how  much  Mr.  Darwin’s  whim- 
sical theory  of  Sexual  Selection  degrades  him  in 
my  humble  estimation,  when  I remember  how 
different  were  the  thoughts  of  some  of  the  intel- 
lectual men  that  I happen  to  have  known.  How 
different,  for  instance,  were  the  thinkings  of  my 
eloquent  friend,  W.  J.  Fox — whose  name  some  of 
you  simply  know  as  that  of  the  late  M.P.  for 
Oldham — but  others  as  that  of  the  most  perfect 
and  refined  orator  of  his  time.  He  would  often 
descant  delightfully  on  the  music  of  Keats  and 
Shelley  and  Byron,  and  Milton,  and  Shakspere, 
and  insist  that  the  ineffable  melody  of  their  verse 
rendered  them  the  highest  poets,  in  our  estimation, 
and  justly  so,  for  it  proved  their  transcendent  sense 
of  the  Beautiful.  And  so,”  he  would  say,  “ the 
Infinite  Maker  fills  His  Creation  with  forms  of  such 
excelling  and  incomparable  beauty,  because  He 
has  the  highest  and  most  perfect  sense  of  the 
Beautiful — -fo7'  God  is  the  greatest  Poet” 

And,  some  of  you  who  have  read  the  Life  of 


A DYING  SAYING  OF  CHARLES  KINGSLEY.  37 

noble  Charles  Kingsley,  will  remember  how  it  is 
therein  related  that,  in  his  last  illness,  in  the  dead 
of  the  night,  he  was  overheard  by  his  little  daughter 
saying,  in  a clear  voice — ‘‘  How  beautiful  God  is  ! 
His  fine  mind,  (which  was  filled  with  such  deep 
love  of  Nature,  was,  doubtless,  in  his  sleeplessness, 
summoning  to  remembrance  some  of  the  scenes 
and  forms  of  beauty  he  had  been  familiar  with; 
and  reflecting  that  He  who  made  the  Beautiful  in 
Nature,  must,  in  Himself,  have  all  possible  per- 
fection, he  uttered  these  simple,  yet  remarkable 
words. 

I delight  to  call  such  men  as  the  two  I have  just 
named  my  benefactors,  rather  than  my  friends — for 
I never  learned  aught  but  reverence  for  the  Maker 
from  them,  when  they  spoke  of  Him.  And  I 
delight,  still  more,  to  remember  that  Newton  and 
the  highest  minds  that  gave  themselves  to  the 
study  of  nature,  were  foremost  in  reverence  for 
God.  How  mournful,  how  deplorable,  it  is  that 
our  modern  philosophers  disdain  to  tread  in  the 
steps  of  their  illustrious  predecessors,  and  seem 
bent  on  ignoring  the  Divine  Name  1 


38 


DUKE  OF  ARGYLL'S  BOOK. 


VII. 


*THE  REIGN  OF  LAW  ' — A WORD  ABOUT  ‘USELESS 

organs' — MR.  Darwin's  forgetfulness  of 

THE  FORESIGHT  EVIDENT  IN  GOD's  CREATION. 

NE  of  the  keenest  blows  levelled  at  Mr. 


Darwin's  theory  is  that  by  the  Duke  of 
Argyll,  in  his  book  entitled  ‘The  Reign  of  Law.' 
Mr.  Darwin  says  it  took  millions  of  years  to  bring 
the  eye  to  its  present  perfection ; then  how  long, 
asks  the  Duke,  did  it  take  to  bring  a wing  to  per- 
fection ? How  could  any  creature  use  a wing  that 
was  only  partly  grown — even  if  it  were  more  than 
half-grown  ? The  essay  that  follows,  in  the  same 
book,  on  ‘ Contrivance  in  the  machinery  for  flight,' 
is  most  excellent.  Get  the  ‘ Reign  of  Law,'  if  you 
have  not  seen  it.  When  you  have  read  all  which  is 
there  introduced  on  ‘ Contrivance  in  the  machinery 
for  flight,'  and  read  it  thoughtfully,  I do  not  believe 


THE  * DESIGN  ’ WE  DO  SEE. 


39 


you  will  think  Mr.  Darwin^s  theory  to  be  a very 
sensible  one. 

‘‘  Useless  organs  ” are  much  dwelt  upon  by  the 
advocates  of  ‘ Natural  Selection.’  You  cannot  ex- 
plain why  they  are  found  in  man  and  the  animals 
without  their  theory,  they  contend — while  ‘Natural 
Selection  ’ leads  them  to  perceive  that  when  such 
useless  organs  are  found  in  an  animal  they  are  to 
be  regarded  as  remains  of  the  creature  from  which 
the  new  animal  has  been  evolved,  or  developed. 

But  suppose  we  cannot  give  the  true  answer  to 
the  questions—  Why  has  the  whale  teeth,  and  why 
has  man  teats  on  the  breast,  which  are  of  no  use?  — 
are  we  to  be  so  foolish  as  to  give  up  all  we  do  know, 
because  of  that,  and  say  we  see  no  proofs  of  design 
or  contrivance  in  nature,  although  they  surround  us 
on  every  side?  Am  I to  be  such  an  idiot  as  to 
profess  that,  having  examined  the  human  hand  and 
arm,  I cannot  see  that  it  is  composed  of  parts  put 
together  for  a purpose — notwithstanding  the  know- 
ledge of  all  it  enables  me  to  do,  I can  see  no  proof 
that  it  is  the  work  of  matchless  Intelligence  and 
Power  ? Because  I cannot  understand  everything, 
am  I to  stultify  myself  by  declaring  that  I know 
nothing  ? 


40  THE  EYE  A PROOF  OF  GOD'S  FORESIGHT. 

Do  we  not  reckon  foresight  as  one  of  the  highest — 
perhaps,  the  very  highest — intellectual  power  in  man? 
We  cannot,  if  we  have  any  faculty  of  observation, 
fail  to  mark  foresight  as  one  of  the  surest  proofs  of  ^ 
the  All-wise  Maker’s  presence  in  Nature.  Remem- 
ber where  the  eye  is  formed.  Not  where  any 
so-called  ‘ Laws  of  Light  ’ can  operate  upon  it ; 
but  in  the  dark  cavern  of  the  womb  ! There,  the 
spherical  eyeball,  the  lenses  with  different  refracting 
powers,  the  iris — or  coloured  rim  for  enabling  us 
to  admit  or  exclude  degrees  of  light,  and  the 
mysterious  provision  for  instant  focussing — have  all 
to  be  .formed.  And  when  the  beautiful  eye  opens 
on  the  light,  the  beautiful  and  transcendent  light 
opens  on  the  eye ; the  adaptation — the  inter- 
adaptation— is  perfect.  Oh,  how  strangely — I had 
almost  said,  how  madly — in  love  with  his  theory  of 
‘ Natural  Selection  ’ must  Mr.  Darwin  be,  that  he 
cannot  see,  or  cannot  acknowledge,  all  this  to  be 
the  workmanship  of  the  Divine  Workmaster,  and 
most  indubitable  proof  of  His  glorious  presence  in 
Nature ! 

I cannot  omit,  for  a moment,  to  point  you  to  the 
formation  of  the  lungs  of  the  infant,  while  I am 


THE  LUNGS  ANOTHER  PROOF.  4 1 

inviting  you  to  consider  the  eye.  Remember,  the 
lungs  are  formed  where  there  can  be  no  breathing. 
The  life  of  the  young  creature  in  the  womb  is  a 
part  of  the  life  of  the  mother  while  it  remains 
there.  There  the  delicate,  silken-looking  tissue  of 
the  lungs  is  formed ; and  they  are  packed  and 
folded  with  an  appearance  of  order  and  symmetry 
that  is  wondrous.  There,  also,  the  minutely  slender 
air-vessels  and  blood-vessels  are  all  formed  and  com- 
pleted. And  when  the  delicate  lungs  feel  the  air, 
it  fills  them,  and  the  young  creature  breathes  and 
enters  on  its  new  life  : the  lungs  are  fitted  for  the 
air,  and  the  air  for  the  lungs ; the  adaptation — the 
interadaptation — is  perfect.  Is  it  not  amazing  that 
Mr.  Darwin  is  so  wildly  in  love  with  his  theory 
of  ‘Natural  Selection,’  that  he  cannot  see,  or 
acknowledge,  this  to  be  an  undeniable  proof  of  the 
perfect  foresight  and  power  of  the  Divine  Work- 
master,  who  thus  fits  and  prepares  a living  creature 
in  one  state  for  living  and  enjoying  existence  in  a 
nobler  state? 


4 


42 


WILD  THEORIES  IN  GERMANY. 


VIII. 

HAECKEL  AND  THE  PLASTIDULIC  SOUL— PESSIMISM 
IN  GERMANY — NECESSITARIAN  TEACHING  OF 
PROFESSOR  TYNDALL,  AND  ITS  RUINOUS  TEN- 
DENCY. 

IN  Germany,  with  Haeckel  as  its  chief  champion, 
Evolution  is  pronounced  to  be  unquestionable, 
and  Religion  is  declared  to  be  only  fit  for  dotards 
and  idiots.  The  true  doctrine  is  ‘ Monism,’  or 
One-ism  : a belief  in  the  sole  existence  of  matter. 
There  is  nothing  spiritual  in  the  universe.  All 
Matter  is  alive ; and  Thought  is  a property  of  Matter, 
and  ripens  by  Evolution.  When  the  protoplasm,  or 
bioplasm, — the  first  cell  of  an  organism  of  the 
lower  creatures, — is  formed  of  carbon,  oxygen,  hy- 
drogen and  nitrogen,  a plastidulic  soul  is  formed. 
This  material  soul  ripens  into  sentience ; in  the 
vertebrates  into  instinct ; and  in  the  higher  mam- 


PESSIMISM  IN  GERMANY. 


43 


malia  into  intelligence.  When  Man  dies,  the  plasti- 
dulic  soul  ceases  to  be — for  Man’s  future  is,  simply, 
annihilation  of  all  consciousness. 

In  addition  to  Monism,  another  dreary  and  mos.t 
wretched  form  of  unbelief  has  arisen  in  Germany. 
It  is  the  doctrine  of  Schopenhauer,  Hartmann,  and 
others,  and  our  writers  call  it  ‘Pessimism.’  Leibnitz, 
the  great  rival  of  our  Newton,  in  the  discovery  of 
the  calculus,  taught  Optimism — or  the  doctrine 
that  all  things  are  for  the  best ; but  these  writers 
teach  Pessimism — or  the  doctrine  that  all  things 
are  for  the  worst.  Human  life,  they  affirm,  is 
guided  by  Necessity.  Man  has  no  Free-will.  He 
is  but  a poor  miserable  creature  who  cannot  help 
himself,  or  help  what  he  does.  He  and  his  chil- 
dren are  the  helpless  prey  of  all  sorts  of  diseases 
and  disasters.  Death  dogs  his  steps,  both  on  sea 
and  land.  Disappointment  and  disgust  are  his 
portion.  He  is  not  so  happy  as  a bird ; and  a bird 
is  not  so  happy  as  an  oyster.  The  only  happi- 
ness for  man  will  be  when  he  dies,  and  sinks  into 
eternal  unconsciousness. 

One  feels  some  doubt  whether  these  grand  phi- 
losophers really  believe  their  grim  theories.  For, 


44 


PESSIMISM,  A NATURAL  RESULT. 


if  they  did,  we  cannot  help  thinking  that  we  should 
hear  of  them  and  their  disciples,  by  scores,  cutting 
their  own  throats,  or  hanging  or  drowning  them- 
selves, every  week.  When  a man  chooses  to  livej 
he  cannot  feel  it  to  be  so  very  hard  and  miserablei 
after  all. 

But,  seriously,  who  can  wonder  that  Pessimism 
is  the  form  that  Unbelief  has,  at  length,  taken  in 
what  we  have  been  accustomed  to  call  ‘ the  great 
intellectual  German  Fatherland  7 When  men  come 
to  persuade  themselves  that  there  is  no  God,  and 
no  hereafter — when  they  voluntarily  relinquish  the 
elevating  hope  and  trust  that  there  is  a nobler  and 
better  state  for  Man,  when  this  probationary  life  is 
ended,  and  cease  to  believe  that  it  is  worth  living 
a holy  life  that  we  may  win  that  higher  state — 
who  can  wonder  that  dark  discontent  takes  posses- 
sion of  the  soul,  and  existence  comes  to  be  re- 
garded as  a curse  rather  than  a blessing?  When 
a man  persuades  himself  that  there  is  no  truth 
worth  seeking  for,  no  cause  worth  suffering  for,  no 
purity  worth  striving  after,  no  nobleness  in  life 
itself — one  cannot  wonder  that  he  comes,  at  last, 
to  look  upon  everything  around  him  with  disgust, 
and  to  say  that  life  is  not  worth  having.  The  only 


NECESSITARIAN  TEACHING  OF  TYNDALL,  45 

wonder  is,  that  he  cleaves  to  life  when  he  regards 
it  as  one  dreary  experience  of  wretchedness. 

Well,  but,”  some  of  you  will  say,  “ our  English 
Men  of  Science  have  not  joined  the  Pessimists  of 
Germany.  They  have  not  enunciated  this  doctrine 
of  misery  in  England.” 

True  : yet,  they  have  taken  the  steps  leading  to 
it.  Huxley  proclaims  that  man  is  an  Automaton — 
a mere  machine ; and  Tyndall  declares  that  Free- 
will is  a misnomer,  and  that  what  a man  does  he 
cannot  help,  even  if  it  be  murder.  To  my  mind 
there  is  no  teaching  so  pernicious  as  to  tell  a 
man  that  he  cannot  help  what  he  does.  What  is 
to  lead  a man  to  struggle  against  temptation,  if 
you  bring  him  to  believe  that  he  cannot  help 
what  he  does  ? What  is  to  prevent  his  moral  ruin  ? 
what  is  to  induce  him  to  refrain  from  committing 
a wrong,  especially  if  he  believes  he  shall  not  be 
found  out?  Could  you  trust  such  a man  with 
your  wife — with  your  daughter — with  your  money  ? 

No  moral  man  that  I have  ever  known  really 
believed  that  he  could  not  help  what  he  did.  I 
am  sure  of  that — although  I have  known  several 


46  RUINOUS  TENDENCY  OF  SUCH  TEACHING. 

highly  moral  men  who  professed  to  believe  that 
they  were  ‘ the  creatures  of  circumstance  ’ ; for 
their  own  uprightness  of  dealing,  their  own  anxiety 
to  do  right,  and  their  hot  displeasure  with  those 
who  did  wrong,  proved  that  they  did  hot  believe 
that  men  cannot  help  what  they  do. 

It  is  a great  crime,  I humbly  think,  for  a man 
like  Professor  Tyndall  to  proclaim  such  a doctrine. 
It  is  the  way  to  render  human  beings  indifferent 
to  the  voice  of  conscience,  and  so  to  lead  them 
to  moral  degradation.  Put  out  a man’s  eyes? — 
you  would  not  blind  him  half  so  effectually  and 
ruinously  as  you  would  if  you  could  succeed  in 
quenching  the  inner  light  of  his  moral  nature. 
Paralyze  a man  in  every  limb  ? — you  would  not 
render  him  a thousandth  part  so  utterly  helpless 
and  decrepit,  as  you  would  if  you  could  succeed 
in  dethroning  within  him  the  rectoral  power  of 
conscience. 

The  leaves  of  the  ‘ Stone  Book,’  it  is  affirmed, 
give  indubitable  proof  of  the  truth  of  the  Evo- 
lution doctrine.  I,  therefore,  propose  to  enter 
with  you  on  a brief  reading  of  their  contents  and 
teachings,  to-morrow  night. 


THE  STONE  BOOK. 


TABLE  OF  CONTENTS, 


INTRODUCTION  *•••••• 

I. 

BRIEF  HISTORY  OF  GEOLOGY  • . • # . 

II. 

CHANGES  IN  THE  THEORIES  OF  GEOLOGISTS  . 

III. 

SKETCH  OF  THE  SCIENCE  OF  GEOLOGY  : PRESENT 
CLASSIFICATION  OF  THE  LAYERS  OF  THE  EARTH’s 
CRUST  : FORMATIONS  AND  STRATA  : THE  AZOIC 
ROCKS  

IV. 

CLASSIFICATION  OF  THE  ZOIC  OR  SEDIMENTARY  ROCKS, 
OR  LAYERS  OF  THE  EARTH's  CRUST,  WHICH  CON- 
TAIN PETRIFACTIONS  AND  MARKS  OF  EXTINCT 
VEGETABLE  AND  ANIMAL  LIFE  .... 

V. 

THE  PRIMARY  OR  PALAEOZOIC  FORMATION  : ORDER 
OF  ITS  LAYERS  OR  STRATA  ; AND  BRIEF  DESCRIP- 
TION OF  THEM  


PAGE 

51 

S6 

61 

67 

7" 

75 


49 


CONTENTS, 


SO 


VI. 

PETRIFACTIONS — OR,  EXTINCT  LIFE-FORMS  TURNED 
INTO  STONE — FOUND  IN  THE  PRIMARY  OR 
PALi«:OZ01C  FORMATION 8o 

VII. 

THE  SECONDARY  OR  MESOZOIC  FORMATION  : ORDER 
OF  POSITION,  AND  BRIEF  DESCRIPTION  OF  ITS 
LAYERS  OR  STRATA 92 

VIII. 

PETRIFACTIONS  FOUND  IN  THE  SECONDARY  OR 

MESOZOIC  FORMATION  . . . . *97 

IX. 

THE  TERTIARY  OR  KAINOZOIC  FORMATION  I ORDER 
OF  POSITION,  AND  BRIEF  DESCRIPTION  OF  ITS 
LAYERS  OR  STRATA IO5 

X. 

PETRIFACTIONS  FOUND  IN  THE  TERTIARY  OR  KAINO- 
ZOIC FORMATION  . . . . . . IO9 

XL 

THE  GLACIAL  THEORY,  AND  THE  GENERAL  QUESTION 

OF  THE  AGE  OF  THE  EARTH  - , « .III 


THE  STONE  BOOK. 


ONE  of  the  theories  of  which  I spoke  to  you 


^ last  night,  can  be  considered  new.  The 
notions  of  De  Maillet,  and  Lamarck,  and  Darwin — 
the  speculations  of  Herbert  Spencer,  and  Tyndall, 
and  Huxley,  and  Haeckel,  and  Vogt,  and  the  rest — 
are  really  but  so  many  varying  expansions  of  the 
old  Ionian  philosophy,  which  was  taught  by 
Empedocles  and  Democritus  and  Epicurus;  and 
which  Lucretius  afterwards  described  in  Latin 
verse.  What  we  were  wont  to  consider  as  the  old 
worn-out  song  of  the  eternity  of  matter  and  its 
forces,  and  of  the  formation  of  all  things  by  the 
fortuitous  concourse  of  atoms,  is  now  revived,  with 
but  little  variety  in  the  modulation,  A man  might 
lay  a wager  against  odds,  and  be  sure  of  winning, 
that  you  could  not  mention  a modern  theory  to 


52 


GEOLOGY,  A NEW  SCIENCE. 


him,  but  he  could  show  you  that  it  was  to  be 
found  among  the  ancient  Greeks.  For,  most 
assuredly,  there  never  was  such  a set  of  men  in 
the  world  for  inventing  theories  as  the  old  Greek 
philosophers.  They  would  make  you  theories  at  a 
halfpenny  a yard,  a whole  summer’s  day  long,  and 
begin  again  eagerly  the  next  morning,  and  make 
you  as  many  more. 

Geology,  on  the  other  hand,  is  a new  science. 
The  ancients  really  made  no  approach  to  it.  We 
cannot  help  wondering  at  this — wondering  that 
early  men  did  not  say  to  one  another,  ‘What  is 
there  under  our  feet  ? Let  us  dig  down  as  far  as 
we  can,  and  see.^  But  there  does  not  seem  to 
have  been  much  curiosity  of  that  kind  among 
early  men.  Yet  there  was  mining  in  the  early  time. 
Copper  and  silver  mining  were  both  entered  upon 
very  early.  Iron  mining  was  later.  Iron  is  only 
mentioned  four  times  in  the  Pentateuch,  while  brass 
is  mentioned  nearly  forty  times ; brass — which 
ought  to  have  been  called  bronze:  nine  parts  copper 
and  one  part  tin  : for  that  was  the  mixed  metal  of 
which  ancient  men  made  their  weapons  and  other 
implements,  before  they  made  them  of  iron.  Brass 


ANCIENTS  LEARNED  LITTLE  OF  THE  EARTH.  53 

is  a modern  metal,  composed  of  copper  and  zinc. 
It  seems  past  a doubt  that  the  ancients  came  to 
Cornwall  for  their  tin  : they  have  left  us  no  record 
of  tin  having  been  found  elsewhere.  The  ‘ surface 
tin,’  as  it  is  called,  of  Australia  and  Tasmania,  has 
nearly  put  an  end  to  the  mining  of  Cornish  tin — 
which  lies  deep,  and  is  very  expensive  in  the  work- 
ing. Besides,  it  has  been  found  that  the  small 
island  of  Banca,  which  lies  between  Sumatra  and 
Borneo,  contains  such  an  abundance  of  tin  that  it 
can  supply  all  the  wants  of  the  world  for  thousands 
of  years  to  come. 

When  the  ancients  had  finished  their  mining  for 
the  metals,  their  curiosity  seems  to  have  carried 
them  no  farther.  Even  the  Greeks,  the  most  in- 
telligent race  in  the  world,  so  restless  as  they  were 
in  almost  every  kind  of  inquiry,  seem  to  have  been 
as  incurious  in  this  respect  as  other  ancient  people. 
That  Aristotle  should  have  evinced  no  desire  to 
know  what  was  in  the  interior  of  the  earth,  and 
never  have  proposed  to  institute  such  inquiry, 
seems  the  most  amazing  of  all  facts.  A mind  of 
such  universal  grasp  has,  perhaps,  never  existed 
since  among  men.  He  has  left  us  noble  treatises 


54 


GUESSES  OF  THE  ANCIENTS. 


on  natural  history  and  law  and  government,  on 
logic  and  rhetoric  and  poetry,  and  on  morals  ; but 
the  idea  of  the  search  we  speak  of  never  seems 
to  have  entered  into  his  mind. 

Ovid,  in  the  ‘ Metamorphoses,'  tells  us  a good 
deal  of  what  Pythagoras  and  the  Greek  philosophers 
taught,  by  way  of  guess  and  deduction  mingled,  as 
to  the  changes  the  earth  had  undergone : how 
earthquakes  and  other  natural  phoenomena  had 
effected  such  changes,  and  how  they  reasoned, 
when  they  found  sea-shells  on  high  hills  and  far 
inland,  that  parts  of  the  land  had  once  been  sea, 
and  the  sea  land.  But  the  ancients  seem  to  have 
made  the  most  monstrous  blunders— judging  from 
the  curious  details  in  the  ‘ Natural  History  ’ of 
Pliny  the  elder — respecting  petrifactions,  when  they 
were  dug  up.  There  can  be  little  doubt  that  what 
were  believed  to  be  the  disentombed  skeletons  of 
human  giants  were  often,  in  reality,  the  remains  of 
ancient  saurians  and  other  monstrous  inhabitants 
of  the  old  world.  The  great  Italian  painter, 
I>eonardo  da  Vinci,  who  was  a man  of  almost 
universal  knowledge,  startled  some  people,  one  day, 
who  brought  him  some  immense  petrifactions,  by 


DANGER  OF  THINKING,  IN  OLD  TIMES.  55 


telling  them  that  the  bones  could  never  have 
belonged  to  any  such  creatures  as  were  then  on 
the  earth,  but  must  have  belonged  to  gigantic 
animals  which  lived  on  the  earth  in  past  ages. 
That  is  about  four  hundred  years  ago ; and  Da 
Vinci  seems  to  have  been  about  the  first  person  on 
record  who  made  such  a truthful  remark. 

And,  indeed,  it  would  have  been  dangerous  to 
make  free  remarks,  either  as  to  what  might  be  the 
antiquity  of  the  earth,  or  as  to  what  animals  lived 
upon  it  before  Man, — in  countries  where  Popery 
held  sway,  four  hundred  years  ago. 


56  FALSE  STEPS,  MANY  YEARS  AGO. 


I 


BRIEF  HISTORY  OF  GEOLOGY. 

WO  hundred  years  ago,  Hooke,  and  Ray,  and 


-L  Woodward,  members  of  the  newly  instituted 
‘ Royal  Society,*  and  others,  were  full  of  anxious 
speculations  about  the  nature  of  the  earth*s  interior 
and  the  causes  of  the  formation  of  its  crust.  Dr. 
Thomas  Burnett  was  also  famous  for  his  imposing 
book  respecting  the  ancient  earth.  Sir  Charles 
Lyell,  in  his  ‘ Principles  of  Geology,* — the  great 
text-book  of  the  science,  will  give  you  a deal  of 
interesting  information  respecting  these  famous 
English  speculators  of  two  hundred  years  ago. 
Nearly  all  of  them  threw  one  great  hindrance  in 
their  own  way,  and  in  the  way  of  others,  as  Sir 
Charles  will  tell  you,  by  trying  to  make  all  their 
speculations  conformable  with  what  they  believed 
to  be  the  meaning  of  the  Bible  account,  and  then 


FEUDS  OF  NEPTUNISTS  AND  VULCANISTS.  57 


quarrelling  about  it.  Hooke,  Ray,  and  Woodward, 
once  formed  the  sensible  resolution  of  entering  on 
practical  study,  and  collected  fossil  shells  and 
pieces  of  chalk,  coal,  slate,  and  stone,  and  some 
other  minerals.  But  they  did  not  persevere ; and 
yonder  lie  the  collections  on  the  shelves  of  the 
Woodwardian  Museum  in  Cambridge,  it  is  said,  to 
this  day  I 

In  1775,  the  celebrated  German  professor  of 
Mineralogy,  Werner,  began  to  deliver  lectures  on 
the  earth’s  strata ; and  taught,  most  emphatically, 
that  the  changes  in  the  earth’s  crust  were  brought 
about  by  the  action  of  water.  A rival  school  was 
soon  started  in  Edinburgh,  by  Dr.  Hutton,  a 
Scottish  physician,  who  was  joined  by  the  illus- 
trious Playfair,  whose  beautiful  classic  monument 
you  will  see  on  the  Calton  Hill  when  you  visit  that 
most  beautiful  city.  The  Scotch  school  maintained 
that  the  transformations  of  the  earth’s  crust  had 
been  effected  chiefly  by  the  agency  of  fire.  So, 
now,  there  were  the  rival  schools  of  the  Neptunists, 
as  the  party  of  Werner  were  called,  and  of  the 
Plutonists  or  Vulcanists — for  the  adherents  of 
Hutton  and  Playfair  were  called  by  both  of  these 


5 


58  WILLIAM  SMITH  FOUNDS  ‘GEOLOGY.' 

terms.  Much  intelligent  discussion,  as  well  as 
mere  wordy  warfare,  arose  between  these  rival 
schools ; but  geology  can  scarcely  be  said  to  have 
received  its  proper  foundations  from  either. 

It  was  left  to  a plain  man  of  the  plain  name  of 
William  Smith  to  become  the  real  father  of  English 
Geology.  He  was  a surveyor  of  land,  who  began 
in  early  life  to  take  notice  of  the  varied  forms  and 
sizes  of  hills,  of  the  different  strata  or  layers  of  the 
soil,  of  the  chalk  and  the  flints  found  in  it,  and  of 
the  various  forms  of  shells  found  in  the  different 
strata.  At  length,  he  set  about  experimental  study 
in  thorough  earnest,  and  in  1790  commenced 
making  journeys  on  foot  into  every  part  of  England 
— descending  into  gravel  pits,  and  stone  quarries, 
and  coal-mines,  and  fissures  of  the  rocks,  in  order 
to  complete  his  observations.  In  1799  he  pub- 
lished the  result  of  his  labours,  describing  all  the 
strata  of  England,  so  far  as  he  had  observed  them. 
So  the  first  book,  worthy  of  the  name,  on  the  great 
science  of  Geology,  was  only  published  one  year 
before  the  close  of  the  last  century.  In  1815, 
— the  year  of  the  battle  of  Waterloo, — Wil- 
liam Smith  published  the  first  English  Geological 


CUVIER  GIVES  IT  REAL  IMPORTANCE.  59 


Map.  So  you  see  how  modern  is  the  science  of 
Geology. 

Since  the  publication  of  William  Smithes  map, 
scarcely  any  study  has  been  pursued  with  so  much 
eagerness  as  that  of  Geology.  The  strata  of  the 
earth  have  been  classified,  and  named,  and  re- 
named, several  times ; but  if  no  more  had  been 
done — if  Geology  had  been  confined  merely  to  the 
study  and  arrangement  of  the  different  layers  of  the 
earth’s  crust,  it  would  never  have  risen  to  be 
the  commanding  science  which  it  is  now.  It  was 
the  commanding  mind  of  Cuvier  which  first  gave 
Geology  its  true  importance.  When,  by  his  pro- 
found knowledge  of  Osteology,  he  had  foretold  that 
the  petrifactions  of  pachydermatous  animals  of 
certain  intermediate  forms  might  yet  be  found,  and 
they  were  founds  and  he  had  arranged  the  precious 
relics  on  the  Museum  shelves  at  Paris  with  his  own 
hand,  the  scientific  wodd  became  fully  awake  to 
the  real  value  of  the  new  science — for  they  saw 
how  it  comprised  the  great  problem  of  the  earth’s 
antiquity,  and  the  various  kinds  of  life  that  had 
existed  upon  it,  and  that  it  might  lead  to  the  un- 
mistakable understanding  of  the  problem. 


6o  FAMOUS  ENGLISH  GEOLOGISTS;  AND 

The  Geological  Society  of  London  was  soon 
formed ; and  William  Smath  received  a diploma,  as 
an  acknowledged  man  of  science ; and  he  and 
his  nephew  Phillips  entered  on  larger  labours;  a 
Professorship  of  Geology,  for  Buckland,  was 
founded  at  Oxford,  and  another  at  Cambridge,  for 
Sedgwick ; and  soon  our  Murchison  and  Lyell, 
and  Conybeare,  and  Forbes,  and  Ramsay,  and 
others,  made  themselves  famous  as  Geologists. 
In  France  and  Germany,  and  in  America,  the  new 
science  also  became  the  ‘ rage  of  the  day,'  as  we 
phrase  it. 


THEIR  BELIEF  IN  NOAH’S  FLOOD. 


6i 


IL 


CHANGES  IN  THE  THEORIES  OF  GEOLOGISTS. 

Having,  thus  hastily,  sketched  the  history  of 
the  science,  I must  impress  on  your  atten- 
tion one  very  important  fact : that  wherever  the 
petrifactions  of  extinct  species  of  animals  were 
discovered,  they  were — up  to  the  close  of  at  least 
the  second  decade  of  the  present  century — held  to 
be  proofs  of  the  historical  truth  of  the  Bible  record 
of  Noah’s  Flood.  The  words  of  Cuvier  himself 
are  very  decided  : — 

I am  of  opinion,  with  M.  Deluc  and  M.  Dolo- 
mieu,  that  if  there  be  any  circumstance  thoroughly 
established  in  Geology,  it  is  that  the  crust  of  our 
earth  has  been  subject  to  a great  and  sudden  revo- 
lution, the  epoch  of  which  cannot  be  dated  much 
further  back  than  five  or  six  thousand  years  ago. 
This  revolution  has,  on  one  hand,  engulfed,  and 


62  BUCKLAND,  AND  THE  KIRKDALE  CAVE. 

caused  to  disappear,  the  countries  formerly  in- 
habited by  men,  and  the  animal  species  at  present 
best  known ; and,  on  the  other,  has  laid  bare  the 
bed  of,  the  last  ocean,  thus  converting  its  channel 
into  the  present  habitable  earth.” 

Our  own  Buckland — afterwards  Dean  of  West- 
minster— and  Sedgwick,  and  the  rest,  held  the 
same  opinion ; and  held  it  stoutly.  Buckland 
maintained  this  view  in  his  celebrated  book  ‘ Reli- 
quiae Diluvianae,’  which  contained  an  account  of 
Kirkdale  cave,  in  Yorkshire.  The  cave  was  dis- 
covered in  the  year  1821,  accidentally,  by  some 
stone-quarry  workers.  It  was  about  two  hundred 
and  fifty  feet  long,  and  the  roof  of  it  barely  enabled 
a man  to  stand  upright.  An  immense  quantity  of 
broken  bones  of  the  elephant,  hippopotamus,  rhi- 
noceros, bison,  horse,  bear,  and  tiger,  were  found 
under  a thick  covering  of  clay.  There  were  also 
bones  of  the  smaller  animals.  The  mouth  of  the 
cave  was  so  small  that  large  animals  could  not 
have  lived  in  it.  And  as  the  fragments  of  their 
bones  were  gnawed  and  channeled  in  a peculiar 
manner,  while  the  teeth  and  bones  of  hyaenas  were 
found  entire.  Dr.  Buckland  reasoned  that  the  cave 


ANCIENT  ACCOUNTS  OF  NOAH'S  FLOOD.  63 

had  been  tenanted  by  these  creatures,  which  always 
channel  the  bones  to  get  at  the  marrow.  He  con- 
cluded that  they  had  carried  to  this  cave  parts  of 
the  bodies  of  large  animals,  and  the  entire  bodies 
of  the  smaller  creatures,  and  had  been  drowned  in 
their  den,  at  the  Deluge. 

As  I am  simply  sketching  the  history  of  the 
changes  in  opinion  among  geologists,  I must  not 
stay  to  do  more  than  remind  you  that  the  tradition 
of  the  Deluge  exists  in  the  literature  of  Greece  and 
Rome,  as  well  as  in  that  of  China,  and,  according 
to  Sir  William  Jones,  in  the  Sanscrit  literature  of 
India;  and  that  the  ancient  Scandinavians  and 
Egyptians  had  similar  traditions — while  the  ancient 
Mexicans  and  Peruvians,  as  well  as  the  tribes  of 
North  American  Indians,  and  scattered  islanders 
of  the  Pacific,  also  shared  them  ; that  the  famous 
medal  of  Apamea,  in  Phrygia,  is  also  held  to  be 
strongly  confirmative  of  the  verity  of  the  Bible 
account ; and  that  the  recent  discovery  of  a long 
cuneiform  record  by  the  lamented  George  Smith, 
of  the  British  Museum,  which  must  have  been 
written  in  ancient  Assyria,  600  years  before  Christ, 
has  brought  still  stronger  confirmatory  testimony 


64  SCEPTICISM  OF  FRENCH  GEOLOGISTS. 

to  the  front.  I say,  I must  not  stay  to  do  more 
than  merely  mention  these  facts.  Geological  his- 
tory demands  that  I next  relate  to  you  how  a novel 
theory  arose  among  geologists. 

The  French  geologists,  with  the  exception  of 
Cuvier  and  a few  others,  soon  began  to  make  light 
of  the  history  of  Noah’s  Flood  ; and  M.  Elie  de 
Beaumont  boldly  declared  his  opinion  that  “ not 
one  cataclysm  only  (the  common  Greek  word  for 
deluge,  or  inundation,)  had  occurred  in  the  history 
of  the  earth,  but  thirty  or  forty.”  In  other  words, 
he  contended  that  every  successive  stratum  of  the 
earth,  or  layer  of  its  crust,  has  been  caused  by  a 
fresh  cataclysm.  After  some  years,  this  theory 
was  deserted,  and  was  somewhat  scornfully  styled 
“ the  Convulsionist  theory.”  But  it  received  the 
adhesion  of  Buckland,  and  Sedgwick,  and  Murchi- 
son, and  Phillips,  and  Conybeare,  and  almost  all 
geologists,  and  was  held  by  Sir  Charles  Lyell  up  to 
the  time  that  he  published  the  tenth  edition  of  his 
‘Principles.’  Sir  Charles  also  held  the  truth  of  the 
Design  Argument,  and  our  old  belief  of  the  separate 
creation  of  species  up  to  the  time  of  the  publication 
of  that  edition  of  his  book.  Sir  Roderick  Murchison 


CONVULSIONIST  THEORY. 


65 


— long  after  other  geologists  had  changed — used 
to  say,  ‘‘I  am  a Convulsionist  still ; and  Dr. 
Whewell,  the  great  Master  of  Trinity  College,  was 
a Convulsionist  till  his  death. 

The  next  change  of  theory  was  to  that  usually 
called  ‘ the  Uniformitarian.’  This  was  the  theory 
of  Sir  Charles  Lyell  when  he  died ; and  it  is — or 
was,  till  very  lately — the  prevailing  opinion  of  all 
living  geologists.  The  Uniformitarian  theory  of 
Geology  teaches  that,  although  the  earth’s  crust  has 
always  been  undergoing  some  disturbance,  in  one 
part  of  it  or  another,  from  the  action  of  volcanoes 
and  earthquakes — yet  there  has  been  no  extremely 
violent  or  complete  change  in  it,  by  cataclysms  ot 
other  forces.  This  theory  affirms  that  the  earth 
has  been  going  on,  for  many  millions  of  years,  just 
in  the  way  it  is  going  on  now.  Rivers  have  carried 
down  the  mud  and  detritus  of  rocks  and  other  sub- 
stances, and  slowly  formed  deltas  at  their  mouths, 
and  thus  created  new  land.  Denudations — or 
strippings- off  of  one  stratum  from  another — have 
laid  bare  the  under  stratum  : thus,  it  is  held  that 
the  chalk  and  greensand  have  been  stripped  off 
from  the  Weald en  clay,  from  Shakspere’s  Cliff  at 


66 


UNIFORMITARIAN  THEORY. 


Dover  to  Beachy  Head,  in  Sussex,  in  the  lapse  of 
many  thousands  of  years.  Upheavals  of  one  side 
of  a continent — that  of  Scandinavia,  for  instance — 
are  always  slowly  going  on,  while  the  other  side  is 
as  slowly  sinking.  New  islands,  or  continents,  are 
being  perpetually  prepared  by  coralline  zoophytes, 
through  long  ages — and  so  on,  for  other  changes. 
But,  of  late,  there  have  been  some  decided 
demurrers  to  the  Uniform itarian  theory,  and  there 
will  be  more.  Nothing  less  than  some  sudden 
and  mighty  dislocation  of  the  strata,  can  possibly 
account  for  the  formation  of  deep  valleys  and 
gorges,  which  are  beheld  in  many  parts  of  the 
earth. 


WHAT  IS  MEANT  BY  ^GEOLOGY.’  67 


III. 

SKETCH  OF  THE  SCIENCE  OF  GEOLOGY!  PRESENT 
CLASSIFICATION  OF  THE  LAYERS  OF  THE 

earth's  crust  : formations  AND  STRATA  : 
THE  AZOIC  ROCKS. 

I MAY  be  talking  to  some — perhaps,  to  many 
— who  have  a good  general  knowledge  of 
Geology,  and  are  familiar  with  its  technicalities. 
But,  I fear,  the  greater  number  of  my  hearers  know 
little  of  what  they  are  accustomed  to  call  its  ‘ hard 
nameSj^and  are  unacquainted  with  its  classification. 
I address  myself  almost  always,  you  know,  to  those 
who  need  teaching,  and  who  wish  to  be  taught ; 
and  so  I must  endeavour  to  make  it  plain  what 
Geology  is.  The  word,  you  all  know,  means 
Discourse  about  the  Earth,  But  Geology  concerns 
itself  little  with  the  inner  part  of  the  globe  on 


68 


WHAT  IS  THE  INNER  EARTH? 


which  we  live,  and  deals  with  what  we  call  its 
‘ crust,'  or  outer  part. 

“ But  what  about  the  inner  part  ?”  you  will  ask  : 
‘‘  can  you  not  begin  by  telling  us  something  about 
that?" — and  I wish  I could  gratify  you.  But  the 
various  theories  about  the  inner  state  of  the  earth 
leave  us  completely  in  uncertainty.  No  one  doubts 
that  there  is  intense  heat  within  our  globe ; and 
many  scientific  men  hold  that  by  far  the  greater 
space  within  it  is  filled  with  melted  matter : matter 
in  a state  of  what  we  call  ‘ white  heat,’  or  fusion. 
Others  think  that  there  is  considerable  solidity 
within  it ; and  a few  eminent  men  of  science  are 
decidedly  of  opinion  that  the  very  centre  of  the 
earth  holds  matter  as  solid  and  heavy  as  platinum. 
On  the  other  hand,  many  judge  that  there  are  huge 
rocky  and  vacant  spaces  in  the  earth,  and  that 
some  of  these  are  filled  with  water.  So,  you  per- 
ceive, I cannot  satisfy  you  as  to  what  is  the  state 
of  the  innermost  earth.  You  can  only  hold  safely 
by  the  fact  that  it  contains  great  heat,  from  the 
fact  that  the  lowest  mines  are  the  hottest,  and 
that  there  are  hot  springs  in  various  parts  of  the 
earth,  and  volcanic  action. 


INNER  CRUST,  OR  AZOIC  ROCKS.  69 

I must  ask  you  to  divide  the  crust  of  the  earth, 
in  your  own  minds,  into  two  parts,  and  to  distin- 
guish the  innermost  crust  as  Azoic,  and  the  upper- 
most as  Zoic : the  first  term  being  applied  to  the 
rocks  which  contain  no  ‘ petrifactions,^  or  forms  of 
life  turned  into  stone  ; and  the  latter  term  meaning 
the  contrary. 

I shall  claim  your  attention  but  for  a short  time 
while  I describe  the  Azoic  rocks,  as  they  do  not 
so  absorbingly  fill  our  minds  with  the  great  pro- 
blems of  past  existence  on  this  earth,  as  do  the 
Zoic  or  Sedimentary  Rocks,  as  they  are  also  called. 

‘ Rock,’  I may  observe,  is  a term  somewhat 
clumsily  applied  to  all  the  earth’s  layers — whether 
clay  or  stone,  hard  or  soft,  by  Geologists. 

Granite  (something  grained)  is  held  to  be  the 
lowest  layer  of  the  earth’s  solid  crust.  It  is  com- 
posed of  quartz  (which  is  chiefly  silica,  or  the 
base  of  flint),  felspar  (which  is  chiefly  aluminium, 
or  the  base  of  clay),  and  mica  a thin,  scaly,  and 
shiny  substance.  Syenite  (from  Syene,  a province 
in  Egypt,  where  it  abounds,)  is  a variety  of  granite, 
which  instead  of  mica,  contains  hornblende,  a 
substance  like  black  glass.  Rocks  of  syenite  are 


70 


VARIETIES  OF  GRANITE, 


found  at  Mount  Sorrel,  in  Leicestershire ; common 
granite  abounds  in  Scotland,  and  in  Cornwall. 
The  last-named  county  unfolds  another  and  very 
beautiful  kind  of  granite,  called  Serpentine ; and 
by  the  side  of  Arthur’s  Seat,  near  Edinburgh,  a less 
beautiful  kind  abounds,  called  Porphyry,  (from  the 
Greek  word  for  purple). 

I must  next  mention  what  are  often  called  the 
Trap  rocks,  and  sometimes  Greenstone  or  Whin- 
stone,  and  Basalt.  The  Greenstone  rocks  often 
are  found  to  consist  of  mere  veins  of  stone  shot 
up,  doubtless,  in  the  fused  or  lava  state,  from 
beneath  the  granite,  and  penetrating  their  way  for 
n;iles  to  the  upper  crust  of  the  earth.  At  other 
times  Greenstone  or  Whinstone  is  found  in  huge 
masses,  as  in  the  Cheviot  Hills.  It  is  believed 
that  the  melted  matter,  originally,  was  shot  up 
beneath  the  sea,  because  it  is  so  dense  : the  lava 
from  our  volcanoes — called  pumice-stone — is  light, 
from  having  been  shot  up  into  the  air. 

Basalt  must  also  have  been  shot  up  from  the 
earth’s  interior  in  a fused  state.  It  is  a remarkable 
substance — being  columnar  in  form,  and  the 
columns  being  in  jointed  pieces,  and  of  geometrical 


AND  OF  TRAP  ROCKS. 


n 


shape.  The  famous  ‘ Fingal’s  Cave/  in  the  isle 
of  Staffa,  and  the  ‘Giant’s  Causeway/  on  the 
northern  coast  of  Ireland,  afford  grand  specimens 
of  Basaltic  formations.  Columnar  Basalt  is  also 
seen  in  the  volcano  of  Hecla,  in  Iceland. 

I have  said  that  granite  is  held  to  be  the  lowest 
layer  of  the  Earth’s  crust — but  there  is  also  a 
belief  among  scientific  men,  that  granite  is  con- 
stantly being  formed  by  chemical  agencies : a 
theory  into  which  we  have  not  time  to  enter, 


now. 


72 


OUTER  CRUST  OF  THE  EARTH, 


IV, 


CLASSIFICATION  OF  THE  ZOIC,  OR  SEDIMENTARY 
ROCKS,  OR  LAYERS  OF  THE  EARTH’s  CRUST  WHICH 
CONTAIN  PETRIFACTIONS  AND  MARKS  OF  EXTINCT 
VEGETABLE  AND  ANIMAL  LIFE. 

HE  sedimentary  rocks,  or  upper  layers  of  the 


JL  Earth’s  crust,  are  held  to  be  about  thirty-two 
miles  in  thickness.  Thirty-two  miles  ! **  some 
of  you  may  be  ready  to  exclaim  ; do  you  mean 
that  any  man,  or  company  of  men,  have  ever  dug 
down  into  the  earth  to  such  a depth?  ’*  The  answer 
will  be,  No;  perhaps  two  miles  may  be  considered 
the  limit  of  the  depth  to  which  men  have  ever 
‘sunk'  or  bored  into  the  earth.  But  you  will 
soon  understand  how  the  thirty-two  miles  have 
been  measured.  If  you  placed  a number  of  books 
one  upon  another  on  their  flat  sides,  and  put  them 
on  a table,  you  could  not  learn  the  contents  of  the 


DIVIDED  INTO  THREE  ‘FORMATIONS.' 


73 


book  at  the  bottom  until  you  had  released  it  from 
its  position.  But  if  you  placed  the  books  on  the 
shelves  of  a library,  you  could  easily  know  what 
was  inside  any  of  the  books.  So,  while  the  rocks 
lie  one  on  another,  to  a great  depth,  you  cannot 
measure  them.  But  if  they  be  thrown  down  beside 
each  other,  you  can  learn  their  size.  Now,  you 
will  often  see  this  bouleversetnent , as  the  French  call 
it — this  tilted-up  condition  of  the  Earth's  strata — if 
you  be  industrious  enough  to  observe  the  appear- 
ance of  the  cuttings  as  you  travel  along  a railway. 
It  is  because  the  layers  of  the  Earth's  crust  have 
been  thrown  up  and  broken  by  interior  forces,  that 
it  becomes  possible  to  measure  the  layers. 

You  will,  perhaps,  feel  surprised  when  I tell  you 
how  unequally  the  sedimentary  rocks  have  been 
divided  into  three  great  ‘ Formations,’  called  the 
Primary,  Secondary,  and  Tertiary — or  Palaeozoic, 
Mesozoic,  and  Kainozoic  formations.  The  Primary, 
or  Palaeozoic  formation,  consists  of  about  twenty- 
six  miles  of  strata  out  of  the  thirty-two  that  I 
have  just  mentioned ; the  Secondary,  or  Mesozoic 
formation,  consists  of  about  three  miles  and  one- 

third  of  a mile ; while  the  Tertiary,  or  Kainozoic, 
6 


74  REASONS  FOR  V’flE  THREE  DIVISIONS. 

consists  of  about  two  miles  and  two-thirds  of  a 
mile. 

Did  geologists  get  any  hint  from  any  very 
ancient  book,  or  tradition,  to  guide  them  in  thus 
dividing  the  Earth's  strata?*'  some  of  you  may 
ask.  The  answer  is,  most  positively y No ; and  be 
pleased  to  remember  it.  The  classification  of  three 
formations  was  forced  upon  their  minds  by  what 
they  have  called  the  unconformity  of  the  three 
formations.  When  they  observed  the  evidences  of 
some  mighty  breaking  up,  contortion,  and  twisting 
and  upheaval  of  the  strata  between  the  Palaeozoic 
and  the  Mesozoic,  and,  again,  between  the  Mesozoic 
and  the  Kainozoic,  and  still  more  when  they  con- 
templated the  evidences  of  almost  entirely  different 
kind  of  life  in  the  Palaeozoic  as  compared  with  the 
Mesozoic, — and  also,  in  the  Mesozoic  as  compared 
with  the  Kainozoic,  this  division  into  three  forma- 
tions was  forced  upon  them,  and  was  unavoidably 
adopted. 


THE  METAMORPHIC  ROCKS. 


75 


V. 


THE  PRIMARY,  OR  PALAEOZOIC  FORMATION  I ORDER 
OF  POSITION  OF  ITS  LAYERS  OR  STRATA  ; AND 
BRIEF  DESCRIPTION  OF  THEM. 

AL^OZOIC,'  be  it  observed,  means  re~ 


-L  lating  to  ancient  life ; and  the  lowest  forma- 
tion of  the  sedimentary  rocks  is  so  called  because 
it  contains  marks  and  petrifactions  of  what  are 
considered  to  have  been  the  most  early  life-forms 
on  this  globe.  Let  us  begin  at  the  beginning — at 
the  lowermost  part  of  the  formation.  Resting  on 
the  granite,  we  come  first  on  an  immense  mass  ot 
rocks,  about  sixteen  miles  in  thickness,  which  for 
some  time  bore  the  unsettled  titles  of  Metamorphic 
rocks,  and  Transition  rocks,  and  Grauwacke  and 
Gneiss,  and  other  questionables.  Sir  Roderic 
Murchison  devoted  himself  to  a study  of  these 
rocks,  and  soon  published  his  book  entitled 


75  THE  EOZOIC  AND  SILURIAN  ROCK. 

‘ Siluria  * — giving  the  name  of  Silurian  rocks  to 
the  slates  and  limestones  and  flags  and  grits  and 
sandstones  of  Shropshire  and  the  parts  of  Wales 
adjoining  that  county— which  were,  ages  ago,  in- 
habited by  the  Silures.  Professor  Sedgwick  also 
diligently  examined  these  rocks,  and  insisted  on 
giving  the  name  of  Cambrian  (from  Cambria,  the 
ancient  name  of  Wales)  to  the  lower  and  denser  of 
them.  The  division,  however,  has  not  rested  there 
— for  the  term  Lau7'entian  has  recently  been  given 
to  the  very  lowermost  and  hardest  of  these  rocks, 
by  Sir  William  Logan.  The  name  is  derived  from 
the  river  St.  Lawrence  in  Canada,  for  it  is  on  the 
banks  of  that  river  that  gneiss^  as  this  hardest  of 
rocks  used  to  be  called,  most  abounds.  It  is  also 
common  to  some  of  our  Hebrides,  or  Western 
Islands  of  Scotland.  The  order  of  position,  thus 
far,  will  be — beginning  from  the  bottom  : i.  Lau- 
rentian;  2.  Cambrian;  and  3.  Silurian  rocks. 

4 and  5.  We  next  come  upon  a double  layer  of 
the  Sedimentary  rocks,  which  were  formerly  classed 
as  single,  being  called  ‘ the  Devonian,  or  Old  Red 
Sandstone.’  They  are  now  called  the  Devonian, 
and  Old  Red  Sandstone.  And  whoever  has  walked 


THE  DEVONIAN  AND  OLD  RED. 


77 


along  the  foot-pavement  of  Plymouth  or  Devonport 
in  a shower  of  rain,  and  marked  the  beauty  of  the 
variegated  limestone  slabs — which  the  natives  fondly 
call  ‘ Devonshire  marble,’ — will  agree  at  once 
that  they  ought  to  receive  a different  nomenclature 
from  the  coarse  red  rocks  of  Herefordshire.  Yet 
the  ‘ Old  Red  ’ is  not  always  of  the  same  colour. 
In  Forfarshire,  it  is  a mottled  dark  gray,  and  is 
very  extensively  used  for  slabs  of  footways — while 
in  Morayshire  it  is  of  a fine  yellow  brown,  almost 
approaching  to  cream-colour,  and  gives  a beauty  of 
a peculiar  kind  to  the  newer  part  of  the  ancient, 
cathedralled  city  of  Elgin. 

6.  The  Mountain  Limestone  lies  above  the  Old 
Red.  It  takes  the  name  of  Yoredale  rocks,  in  the 
north  of  Yorkshire,  from  the  river  Yore.  It  is 
usual  to  call  the  Mountain  Limestone  the  beginning 
of  the  Carboniferous,  or  Coal-bearing  strata — for  it 
is  often  intersected  by  coal. 

7.  The  Millstone  Grit — so  abundant  and  so  well 
known  in  Yorkshire,  usually  lies  above  the  Moun- 
tain Limestone ; but  the  Yoredale  rocks  often  pass 
into  it  without  any  ‘unconformity,’  in  geological 
phrase ; and  often,  it  is  also  intersected  by  coal. 


78  THE  ENGLISH  COAL  MEASURES, 

8.  The  coal  measures — to  us,  the  most  important 
strata  of  the  Palaeozoic  formation — come  next. 
We  have  one  seam  of  coal,  in  England,  which  is 
thirty  feet  in  thickness.  It  is  beneath  the  * Black 
Country,’  between  Dudley  and  Wolverhampton, 
and  is  the  property  of  the  Earl  of  Dudley,  the 
great  ‘ coal  king,’  as  the  colliers  call  him.  But 
our  British  coal  seams  are  commonly  from  five  to 
ten  feet  in  thickness  ; and  some  seams  are  worked 
which  are  less  than  three  feet — the  poor  collier 
having  to  toil  on  for  hours,  in  a cramped-up 
posture,  with  his  ‘ pick,’  or  sharp  hammer,  by  the 
dim  light  of  his  Davy  lamp,  to  procure  for  us  this 
great  requisite  for  our  daily  comfort  and  use. 

Between  the  seams  of  coal,  slaty  and  clayey 
shales,  and  thin  layers  of  limestone  and  sandstone, 
are  often  found  ; the  most  valuable  substance,  how- 
ever, which  is  mixed  up  with  the  coal  seams  is 
iron  ore.  It  is  found  in  abundance  in  all  our  coal 
districts  : in  Yorkshire,  Northumberland,  and  Dur- 
ham, and  in  Staffordshire ; and  also  in  Wales  and 
Scotland. 

9.  The  Permian  (so  called  from  Perm,  a pro- 
vince of  Russia,  where  it  abounds)  or  Magnesian 


AND  THE  MAGNESIAN  LIMESTONE. 


79 


Limestone,  forms  the  uppermost  stratum  of  the 
Palaeozoic  formation.  It  is  found  in  Nottingham- 
shire— where  it  has  been  quarried  to  build  the 
new  Houses  of  Parliament.  It  extends  in  a thin 
line  through  Yorkshire ; and  extends  over  a small 
part  of  East  Derbyshire,  and  over  a larger  part  of 
Durham : at  Sunderland,  in  that  county,  it  often 
takes  the  name  of  Dolomite — a stone  exhibiting 
a variety  of  whimsical  forms^ — at  which  we  need 
not  wonder,  for  the  language  of  Dr.  Dawson,  in 
his  ‘ Story  of  the  Earth  ’ is — “ Then  came  on  that 
strange  and  terrible  Permian  period,  which,  like 
the  more  modern  boulder-formation,  marked  the 
death  of  one  age  and  the  birth  of  another,” 


8o  FINDING  OF  THE  ‘ EOZOON  CANADENSE.^ 


VL 


PETRIFACTIONS — OR,  EXTINCT  LIFE-FORMS  TURNED 
INTO  STONE — FOUND  IN  THE  PRIMARY  OR 
PALAEOZOIC  FORMATION. 


E will,  to  relieve  ourselves  of  anything  like 


^ » too  much  dry  detail  at  once,  reserve  a 
description  of  the  strata  in  the  other  two  formations 
until  we  have  glanced  at  the  petrified  life-forms  in 
the  Palaeozoic. 

Limestone  has  been  found  intersecting  gneiss 
or  Laurentian  stratum,  and  in  it  has  recently  been 
found  what  is  considered  to  be  the  earliest  of  all 
forms  of  life.  Sir  William  Logan  discovered  it,  and 
Principal  Dawson,  Dr.  Carpenter,  and  others,  have 
endorsed  the  reality  of  the  discovery,  to  which 
Principal  Dawson  has  given  the  name  of  ‘ Eozoon 
Canadense,^  or  Canadian  early-living  creature.  It 
belongs  to  the  Rhizopods,  or  root-footed  creatuy^es — 


THE  TRILOBITE,  AND  ITS  EYES.  8 1 

microscopic  existences  belonging  to  the  Foramini- 
fera,  of  which  millions  are  still  found  at  the  bottom 
of  the  Atlantic.  It  was,  it  may  be  therefore  con- 
cluded, a form  of  sea-life. 

I must  not  stop  to  describe  to  you  the  Molluscs — 
the  Brachiopods  and  Echinoderms,  or  the  early 
forms  of  sponges,  which  have  been  traced  in  the 
Cambrian  stratum.  I must  pass  on  to  one  im- 
portant form,  first  found  in  the  Cambrian,  and 
becoming  extinct  in  the  Carboniferous  strata.  This 
was  the  Trilobite,  or  three-lobed  creature.  It  re- 
sembled three  small  shields  joined  together,  was 
composed  of  joints,  so  that  it  could  curl  itself  up, 
and  had  two  eyes.  Some  of  the  Trilobites  were 
very  small,  and  some  from  one  to  two  feet  long. 
From  the  abundance  of  their  petrifactions,  it  is 
concluded  that  they  existed  in  millions,  and  were 
the  scavengers  and  master-creatures  of  the  ancient 
seas,  before  the  creation  of  fishes,  for  they  are 
found  most  numerously  in  the  middle  of  the  Silurian 
stratum. 

Let  me  draw  your  particular  attention  to  the 
eyes  of  the  Trilobite.  Each  of  these  eyes  had  font 
hundred  facets.  ‘ Facet  ^ (ox  lit fi(  face)  you  have  in 


82 


THE  DUKE,  AND  THE  QUEEN. 


the  diamond  when  it  has  been  cut.  The  famous 
Koh-i-Nur,  or  mouniain  of  lights  as  it  means,  in 
Arabic,  the  priceless  diamond  which  was  won  in 
India,  and  presented  to  Queen  Victoria  when  she 
was  young,  is  said  to  have  been  so  dull — mag- 
nificent as  the  stone  was  in  size — that  it  did  not 
seem  to  deserve  the  Arabic  name.  The  story  runs 
that  the  ‘ Iron  Duke  ’ said  to  the  Queen,  “ Your 
Majesty  should  have  it  cut  into  facets.^'  ‘‘  I will 
commit  it  to  your  care,  if  your  Grace  will  undertake 
to  see  it  done,”  said  the  Queen.  And,  at  once, 
Wellington  received  it,  and  wrapped  it  in  his  silk 
handkerchief.  He  took  it  to  the  lapidary,  watched 
him  working,  the  first  time,  and  then  took  posses- 
sion of  it  again.  Thus  he  watched  the  lapidary,  day 
by  day,  always  taking  the  diamond  back  into  his 
own  care, — always  ‘ the  soldier  of  duty,’  you  see, — 
and  safely  gave  it  back  into  the  Queen’s  hands. 
Now,  when  she  places  it  on  her  brow,  it  dazzles  the 
eyes  of  beholders. 

Some  of  you  who  thinks  will  be  asking,  Why 
had  these  creatures  this  remarkable  provision?” 
Perhaps,  that  no  minute  object,  on  any  side,  might- 
escape  their  vision  in  the  water.  Or  there  mav 


A REASON  FOR  MANY  EYES. 


83 


have  been  reasons  for  such  a provision  that  we 
cannot  penetrate.  Our  common  dragon-fly  has 
7000  such  facets,  or  lenses,  in  each  eye  ; and  there 
is  one  kind  of  butterfly  which  has  35,000  lenses  in 
its  two  eyes.  ‘‘What  is  it  for?”  is  the  natural 
question  which  is  sure  to  arise  in  every  thoughtful 
mind,  when  such  information  is  given  to  it.  But 
how  often  we  cannot  devise  the  answer  to  our 
questions ! I have  a little  theory  of  my  own  about 
the  lenses  in  the  eyes  of  our  beautiful  insects. 
Why  should  not  you  and  I have  our  theories,  as 
well  as  Mr.  Darwin  ? My  theory  may  be  worth- 
less— but  it  pleases  me,  and  so  I’ll  tell  it  you. 

“God  is  love.”  And  His  love  may  be  mani- 
fested to  what  we  deem  the  meanest  of  His  crea- 
tures, in  many  ways  that  we  cannot  discern,  in  our 
present  state.  As  the  multitude  of  lenses  present 
objects  to  the  insects  in  every  possible  direction, 
and  it  may  be  of  every  possible  dimension,  how- 
ever minute,  they  may  also  present  the  rays  of 
light  in  every  possible  variety  of  colour ; and  God 
may  have  given  to  these  beautiful  creatures,  which 
are  clothed  with  rich  and  varied  colours,  and  fre- 
quent the  flowers  which  His  glorious  hand  has  also 


84  the  enjoyment  of  colours. 

clothed  with  every  rich  and  varied  colour,  a rapture 
in  the  enjoyment  of  colour  which  is  unknown  and 
inexperienced  by  ourselves.  How  we  dhfer  in  our 
perception  of  colour,  and  in  its  enjoyment!  Some 
are  ‘colour  blind,’  like  John  Dalton,  the  great 
chemist,  who  would  have  it  that  a red  and  a green 
handkerchief  were  of  the  same  colour.  What  eyes 
for  colour,  on  the  other  hand,  must  have  been  the 
eyes  of  Titian,  and  Giorgione,  and  Rubens  1 

I do  not  know  how  many  of  you  share  my  feel- 
ing, but  I can’t  help  saying  to  you  that  I never 
enter  one  of  our  old  cathedrals  and  gaze  on  the 
glorious  azure  and  gorgeous  vermilion  of  some  of 
the  old  windows  without  a delight  that  is  inexpres- 
sible. Do  not  you  all  enjoy  the  beauty  of  flowers? 
A simple  marigold,  with  its  glowing  orange  petals 
and  sweet  green  leaves,  is  a sight  I never  see  in 
spring  without  a throb  of  joy.  It  is  recorded  of 
Linnaeus, ^that  when  he  first  saw  afield  of  the  golden 
gorse  in  full  flower,  he  fell  on  his  knees,  and,  with 
tears,  thanked  God  for  creating  such  a glorious 
sight  for  man.  I think  I experienced  a kindred 
feeling  when  I saw  a flower  which  I never  saw  but 
once  in  my  life.  It  was  a costly  flower,  growing 


GOD,  THE  GREAT  OPTICIAN.  85 

in  the  collection  of  one  who  loves  God’s  beautiful 
flowers — Mr.  Thomas  Coats,  the  philanthropic 
manufacturer  of  Paisley.  The  flower  was  the 
Vanda  carulea  of  the  Himalaya  mountains;  and  it 
is  said  to  be  the  grandest  orchid  in  the  world. 

Dean  Buckland’s  intelligent  remark,  in  his 
Bridgewater  Treatise,  should  not  be  forgotten. — 
If  an  Egyptian  mummy,  when  opened,  were  found 
to  have  a telescope  or  microscope  in  its  hand, 
should  we  not  say,  The  Egyptians  understood 
optics”? — and  can  we  examine  the  eyes  of  the 
Trilobite,  which  geologists  afflrm  existed  millions 
of  years  ago,  and  deny  that  the  Almighty  and  All- 
wise Optician  did  not  then  exist? 

One  more  observation  about  the  Trilobites,  and 
we  leave  them.  Geologists  have  found  no  mark 
of  a living  form  from  which  to  argue  that  they  were 
evolved ; and  they  disappear,  in  the  Carboniferous 
series,  without  leaving  any  mark  of  offspring,  or 
evolved  successors.  They  are  found  as  having 
existed  during  one  early  period ; and  they  are  never 
found  afterwards.  A fact  of  the  strongest  kind  in 
disproof  of  Evolution. 

Nor  is  the  existence  of  the  Ganoid  fishes,  as 


86 


GANOID  FISHES  FOUND,  FIRST. 


the  earliest  found,  a less  powerful  fact  disr'-oving 
the  theory  of  Evolution.  Agassiz,  the  Kdlliant 
pupil  of  Cuvier,  delighted  his  teacher  by  suggest- 
ing a most  simple  and  sensible  arrangement  of  the 
fishes  into  four  classes  : i.  Ganoid  (fvom.ganos,  the 
Greek  word  for  splendour,)  or  armed  fishes,  such 
as  the  sturgeon  ; 2.  Placoid  fishes,  or  fishes  with 
thick  rough  coverings,  like  the  shark;  3.  Ctenoid 
fishes,  whose  scales  have  edges  resembling  the 
teeth  of  a comb  ; and,  4.  Cycloid  fishes,  whose 
scales  are  circular.  Now,  Ganoid  fishes  are  most 
abundant  in  the  Palaeozoic  formation  ; are  fewer 
in  the  Mesozoic  and  Kainozoic ; and  we  have  not 
now  more  than  nine  species  of  them.  The 
lamented  Hugh  Miller  first  discovered  petrifaction? 
of  them  in  the  Old  Red  ; but  they  have  since  been 
found  in  the  Ludlow  limestone  and  other  Palaeozoic 
rocks,  as  I have  already  said,  abundantly.  The 
Ganoids  are  the  earliest  found  petrifactions  of 
fishes.  Geologists  have  urged  that  simpler  forms 
of  fishes  will  be  found,  perhaps^  even  in  the  lower 
rocks.  But  none  have  been  founds — a fact  very  un- 
favourable to  the  theory  of  Evolution. 

The  Placoid  fishes  were  also  numerous  during 


THE  CRINOIDS,  OR  SEA  LILIES. 


87 


the  Palaeozoic  period,  together  with  large  Crusta- 
ceans, resembling  the  king-crabs  of  the  West 
Indies  ; and  many  petrifactions  of  insects  allied  to 
our  beetles,  cockroaches,  ants,  centipedes,  and 
scorpions,  are  found  in  these  early  rocks.  I must 
not  describe  them  at  length.  Let  me,  however, 
invite  your  attention  for  a few  moments  to  what 
are  called  Crinoids,  or  sea- lilies,  one  of  the  most 
remarkable  forms  of  life  during  the  Palaeozoic 
period.  Some  of  the  beds  of  mountain  limestone, 
some  hundreds  of  feet  in  thickness,  are  almost 
entirely  composed  of  the  broken  skeletons  of  these 
crinoids.  They  must  have  been  abundant  in  the 
early  seas.  A creature  of  very  simple  organisation, 
resembling  a portion  of  sea-jelly,  was  gifted  by  the 
Almighty  Maker  with  the  instinct  of  collecting,  or 
abstracting,  lime  from  the  sea-water,  and  forming 
therewith  a geometrically-shaped  piece  of  stone, 
and  rooting  it  in  the  bottom  of  the  sea.  On  this 
it  proceeded  to  form  and  lay  another  piece  of  lime- 
stone, and  on  this  another,  and  so  on,  till  it  had 
raised  a tall  stone  column,  with  each  joint  of  which 
it  kept  up  communication  by  means  of  two  bundles 
of  fibres  piercing  the  centre  of  the  flexible  pillar. 


88 


LESSONS  OF  PATIENCE,  FOR  US. 


The  creature  then  branched  off  in  its  workman- 
ship into  a number  of  stone  arms  of  similar  work- 
manship, and  thus  formed  a figure  like  the  cup  of 
c lily.  The  Briarean  Pentacrinite — one  of  these 
strange  zoophytes — was  composed  of  1 50,000  pieces 
of  limestone,  and  was  held  together  by  300,000 
bundles  of  fibres ! 

“What  did  God  form  such  strange  creatures 
for?”  “Why  did  He  make  them?”  are  natural 
questions  which  must  arise  in  a mind  which  has 
any  capability  of  thinking.  But  your  lecturer  can- 
not answer  these  questions ; and  he  knows  no 
mortal  man,  nor  has  he  ever  heard  of  one,  who 
had  the  ability  to  answer  them.  There  must  be 
purpose,  even  when  we  cannot  trace  it,  in  every 
part  of  God^s  work.  He  never  works  by  caprice. 
How  many  thousands  of  things  there  are  around 
us,  how  many  evident  marks  of  skill  and  fitness, 
which  thus  set  us  fast ! Ought  we  to  be  surprised 
at  this  ? Can  we  expect,  with  our  imperfect  facul- 
ties, to  comprehend  all  around  us?  Do  we  not 
know  that  we  comprehend  nothing?  Let  us  have 
a little  patience.  In  the  higher  state  which  Christ 
has  promised  to  us — where  we  shall  know  as  we 


ANCIENT  PLANTS  BECOME  COAL. 


89 


are  knoum^ — I,  for  one,  confide  that  many  natural 
mysteries  which  puzzle  us  now,  will  be  made  plain 
to  us. 

The  vegetable  life  of  the  Palaeozoic  formation  is 
of  higher  moment  to  us  than  even  the  mysterious 
and  strange  forms  of  animal  life  to  which  we  have 
paid  brief  attention.  Algae,  or  sea-weeds,  and 
other  simple  vegetable  forms,  we  pass  by,  to  note 
the  plants  of  gigantic  growth  which,  by  the  com- 
bined influences  of  moisture,  heat,  pressure,  and 
other,  as  yet,  unknown  causes,  operating  through 
long  ages,  have  been  transformed  into  coal — the 
kind  of  fuel  which  has  become  such  a desideratum 
in  our  modern  civilisation.  These  plants  were  not 
what  we  commonly  name  and  value  as  ‘flowers.^ 
They  were  lower  forms  of  vegetation  : horse-tails, 
club-mosses,  ferns  : conifers,  or  cone-bearing  trees, 
were  the  highest  forms  among  them. 

The  earth  in  its  hot,  steamy  state,  before  the 
formation  of  the  sun,  threw  up  these  lower  forms 
of  vegetation  into  monstrous  growths.  Nearly 
two  hundred  species  of  fossil  ferns,  some  more 
than  thirty  feet  high,  chiefly  polypodies,  have  been 
discovered  in  coal-seams  and  the  shale  that  sepa- 
7 


90  COAL,  IRON,  AND  LIME,  TOGETHER, 

rates  them  : horse-tails  arranged  into  a new  genus 
called  Calamites^  of  great  height,  and  some  a foot 
in  diameter ; and  two  genera  of  Ly copods ^ or  club 
mosses,  named  Lepidodendrons  and  Sigillaria^  some 
of  them  fifty  feet  high  and  three  or  four  feet  thick 
in  the  stalk. 

The  coal-seams  stretch  across  Europe,  from  east 
to  west ; are  believed  to  extend  beneath  the  bed  of 
the  Atlantic;  and  are  spread  over  North  America 
to  the  slopes  of  the  Rocky  Mountains.  The 
lamented  Hugh  Miller  observes  that  if  our  earth 
could  have  been  seen  by  the  inhabitants  of  another 
planet  during  the  Carboniferous  period  of  the 
Palaeozoic  formation,  it  must  have  seemed  to  be  of 
a perennial  green  colour,  from  the  abundance  of  its 
growth  of  vegetation. 

A believer  in  Mr.  Darwin’s  theory  will  see  no 
proof  of  a Divine  Providence  in  the  existence  of 
coal-seams  in  such  abundance.  But  we  who 
believe  in  such  a Providence  see  it  proven  in  the 
existence  of  iron  ore  amidst  the  coal ; in  the  pre- 
sence of  mountain  limestone,  too — for  lime  is  neces- 
sary as  the  ‘ flux  ’ without  which  the  furnace-work 
could  not  go  on  ; and  also  in  the  disturbing  forces 


PROOFS  OF  god’s  BENEFICENCE.  91 

which  raised  the  coal,  and  broke  it  into  ^ faults,^ 
thus  inclining  it  for  convenient  reach  and  working 
by  man — the  crown  of  earth’s  creation  whom  God 
had  in  His  beneficent  view  and  regard,  while  pre- 
paring the  earth  for  him. 

It  is  supposed  that  these  vast  growths  of  vege- 
tation subsided,  or  sank,  again  and  again;  that  the 
swamps,  where  they  grew,  were  silted  up,  and 
another  growth  succeeded  ; and  that  this  process 
went  on  for  long  ages,  until  the  numerous  seams 
were  formed.  The  roots  of  the  sigillaria  are  often 
found  in  one  seam,  or  in  the  shale,  and  run  up 
into  the  seam  above,  or  into  tue  shale  above  that. 
Geologists  reckon  that  the  Carboniferous  period 
must  have  lasted  more  than  a million  of  years. 


92 


PASSAGE  TO  THE  MESOZOIC# 


VII, 

THE  SECONDARY,  OR  MESOZOIC  FORMATION:  ORDER 
OF  POSITION,  AND  BRIEF  DESCRIPTION  OF  ITS 
LAYERS,  OR  STRATA. 

‘ 1\  /T  ESOZOIC  ’ points  out  the  petrifactions  of 
1 VX  what  is  considered  to  be  the  middle  period 
life  of  the  earth.  One  cannot  help  wondering  that 
the  Mesozoic  is  not  considered  as  beginning  with 
the  Magnesian  limestone.  The  marks  of  ‘ uncon- 
formity ’ of  which  I have  before  spoken,  and  which, 
we  are  told,  led  geologists  to  make  their  divisions, 
first,  of  a great  threefold  character,  begin  during 
the  latter  part  of  the  Carboniferous  period.  The 
Permian  or  Magnesian  limestone  lies  immediately 
“ over  the  bent  and  denuded  edges  and  surfaces  of 
the  Carboniferous  strata  — a proof  that  great  dis- 
turbing forces  must  have  been  in  operation  before 
the  Magnesian  limestone  was  deposited.  The  fact 


LARGE  SURFACE  OF  THE  NEW  RED. 


93 


that  few  life-forms  of  animals  found  in  the  Permian 
are  found  in  the  Mesozoic  seems  chiefly  to  have 
determined  the  present  order  of  classification. 

The  contents  of  the  secondary  formation  are 
usually  distributed,  first,  into  groups  of  rocks: 
the  driassic,  Jurassic,  and  Cretaceous  groups: 
Triassic,  meaning  threefold  ; Jurassic,  from  Mount 
Jura  in  Switzerland,  because  the  kind  of  rocks 
signified  abound  there  ; and  Cretaceous,  from  creta^ 
or  chalk.  The  Triassic  is  again  divided  thrice : 
Bunter  Sandstein^  Muschelkalk^  and  Keuper Sandsiein^ 
the  second-named  not  being  found  in  England,  but 
abounding  in  Germany.  The  Bunter  and  Keuper 
Sandsteins  form,  together,  what  is  called — 

I . The  New  Red  Sandstone,  which  covers  a large 
surface  in  several  counties  of  England.  If  you 
plape  your  forefingers  at  the  upper  part  of  the  map 
of  England — say,  one  in  Cumberland,  and  the  other 
about  the  mouth  of  the  Wear. — then  gradually  bring 
your  fingers  down  into  the  Midlands,  and  then 
pass  downwards  on  the  western  side  of  England 
into  the  heart  of  Devon,  you  will  mark  out  the 
large  district  over  which  extends  either  the  Upper 
and  Lower  New  Red,  or  the  ‘Variegated  Marls* 


94 


LIAS,  SUCCEEDS  THE  NEW  RED. 


which  pertain  to  it,  and  which  abound  in  gypsum. 
The  Keuper  (copper)  or  Upper  New  Red  is  noted 
for  its  salt-springs : it  is  thought  that  salt  lakes 
abound  under  it. 

Dean  Buckland  observes  that  some  of  the  best 
known  towns  in  England  stand  on  the  New  Red  : 
Carlisle  and  York,  Preston  and  Warrington,  Liver- 
pool and  Manchester,  Chester  and  Shrewsbury, 
Nantwich  and  Droitwich,  Lichfield  and  Coventry, 
Stafford  and  Wolverhampton,  Derby,  Nottingham 
and  Leicester,  Worcester,  Bristol  and  Exeter. 

2.  The  Lias  forms  the  lowermost  part  of  the 
Jurassic  rocks.  It  extends  from  the  north  of  York- 
shire, in  a belt  lying  south-west,  to  Dorsetshire.  It 
is  remarkable  as  a series  of  beds  for  its  evenness, 
and  its  generally  undisturbed  horizontal  position. 
Lias  slabs  are  often  used  for  footways,  and  great 
quantities  of  Lias  are  burnt  for  use  as  lime.  Iron 
ore  is  found  in  immense  masses  in  the  Cleveland 
hills  of  Yorkshire,  and  in  a part  of  Northants,  and 
also  near  Banbury : all  in  the  Lias  division. 

3.  The  Oolite  (from  oon^  an  egg,  and  lithos^ 
stone)  is  another  division  of  the  Jurassic.  It  con- 
sists of  stones  of  varied  character.  Some  are  firm 


THE  OOLITE  AND  THE  GREENSAND. 


95 


in  texture,  and  are  fine  building  stones;  while  the 
‘fuller’s  earth’  is  soft,  and  the  Bath  stone  is 
adapted  for  carving,  and  is  considered  equal  to  Caen 
stone  for  ornamental  purposes.  The  Stonesfield 
slate  is  also  among  the  Oolites,  and  the  Cornbrash 
and  Forest  marble  of  the  west  of  England.  The 
‘ Oxford  Clay  ’ stretches  over  a considerable  part 
of  England,  from  Weymouth  to  Scarborough,  and 
underlies  the  boggy  surface  of  the  fens,  in  the 
counties  of  Huntingdon,  Cambridge,  and  Lincoln. 
The  Portland  stone  of  which  St.  Paul’s,  and  Somer- 
set House,  and  many  of  Wren’s  churches  are 
built,  and  which  is  so  extensively  used  in  the  south 
of  England  for  flagging  footways,  also  belongs  to 
the  Oolite,  as  also  do  the  Purbeck  stone,  the 
Wealden  clay,  and  the  Hastings  sand. 

4.  The  Greensand  forms  the  lowermost  layer  of 
what  is  called  the  Cretaceous  group.  “ Can  any 
sand  be  green?'’  some  one  may  ask.  If  you  see 
it  near  Reigate,  it  is  of  the  most  varied  colours. 
But  the  greensand  is  commonly  anything  but  green. 
It  resembles,  rather,  lumps  of  cinders  thrown  out  of 
a furnace,  for  it  abounds  with  iron.  The  palisades 
of  St.  Paul’s  were  made  from  iron  obtained  from 


96 


THE  THREEFOLD  CHALK  STRATA. 


^he  greensand  of  Sussex  ; — or,  as  it  is  now  affirmed, 
from  the  Weald  Clay,  beneath  the  greensand.  The 
iron  ore  was  fused  with  charcoal : coal  not  being 
at  hand.  The  Gault — a heavy  dark-coloured  marl 
or  clay — is  found  among  the  greensand. 

5.  The  Chalk,  properly  so  called,  is  in  three 
layers  : the  lowermost  layer  is  of  a greenish  cast, 
and  hard ; the  middle  layer  is  of  a grey  hue,  and  is 
also  hard  : it  is  the  subsoil  of  the  Lincolnshire  and 
Yorkshire  wolds  ; the  uppermost  layer  is  the  white 
and  soft  chalk  which  is  converted  into  whiting: 
this  is  the  layer  which  abounds  in  rows  of  flint 
nodules,  and  which  many  of  you,  no  doubt,  have 
observed  in  some  railway  cuttings.  The  flints  were 
sponges,  in  the  ancient  seas.  The  sponges — the 
soft  sponges  which  we  daily  use — are  chiefly  silex^ 
or  flint.  In  the  stalks  of  flowers  and  of  corn  flint 
abounds.  God  can  use  what  seems  to  us  to  be  the 
most  unlikely  and  stubborn  of  all  materials  to  form 
the  most  delicate  and  tender  of  His  patterns  of 
workmanship. 


AMMONITFS  OF  THK  MESOZOIC* 


97 


VIII 


PETRIFACTIONS  FOUND  IN  THE  SECONDARY  OR 
MESOZOIC  FORMATION. 

HE  chief  petrified  vegetable  forms  found  in 


^ the  Secondary  Formation,  are  Conifers  and 
Cycads  : in  form,  the  last-named  resembled  a pinC' 
apple  in  full  growth, — but  you  must  picture  to 
yourself  a form  resembling  a pineapple  of  very 
considerable  size. 

Ammonites  are  the  most  peculiar  animal  form 
of  petrifaction  found  in  the  Mesozoic,  and  they  are 
peculiar  to  it,  being  never  found  in  the  Palaeozoic 
or  Kainozoic  formations.  You  know  them  well, 
many  of  you,  no  doubt,  as  resembling  a snake 
coiled  up  and  turned  into  stone.  Some  are 
small,  many  of  them  large  : the  largest  have  been 
found  in  the  Isle  of  Portland — being  nearly  five 
feet  in  diameter.  These  ‘ chambered  ^ forms  were 


98  FISHES  OF  THE  MESOZOIC. 

tenanted  by  molluscs  living  in  the  sea.  The  Ortho- 
ceras,  a form  resembling  the  Ammonite,  existed  only 
in  the  Palaeozoic  : the  Nautilus,  which  is  also  a 
relative  of  the  Ammonite,  is  found  in  the  recent 
period. 

There  is  an  abundance  of  fishes  found  among 
the  petrifactions  of  the  Mesozoic,  and  they  are 
now  found  with  the  form  of  tail  common  to 
most  of  our  living  fishes — the  ^ homocercal,’  in 
which  the  fins  are  attached  to  the  end  of  the 
vertebra.  In  the  Ganoid  and  Placoid  fishes  of  the 
Palaeozoic,  the  tail  was  what  is  termed  ‘ hetero- 
cercal ' — the  fins  being  attached  only  to  the  upper 
part  of  the  vertebra,  at  its  end ; the  sturgeon  and 
the  shark,  of  our  day,  have  this  ancient  form  of 
tail. 

Crinoids,  star-fishes,  belemnites  (a  creature 
allied  to  the  cuttle-fish),  corallines,  oysters,  and 
other  low  animal  forms,  belonged  also  to  the 
Secondary  formation — with  numerous  insects  ; and 
in  1862  the  earliest  fossil  bird  was  discovered  in 
it.  In  America,  they  profess  to  have  found  foot- 
prints of  birds  of  immense  size  in  the  New  Red; 


THE  HUGE  ICHTHYOSAURUS. 


99 


but  it  is  questionable  whether  they  are  not  the 
marks  of  reptiles. 

For  this  was  the  great  period  of  reptile  life. 
The  Lias  stratum  abounds  with  petrifactions  of 
huge  saurians.  The  Ichthyosaurus  will  be  a figure 
you  have  often  seen  represented  in  books.  It  was, 
as  its  name  denotes,  a fish-lizard, — a terrible  in- 
habitant of  ancient  seas.  It  was  thirty  feet  long, 
and  had  one  hundred  joints  in  its  vertebra,  moved 
by  four  huge  paddles, — had  eyes  each  as  large  as  a 
man's  head,  and  in  its  jaws,  which  were  six  feet 
in  length,  were  two  hundred  conical  teeth.  The 
eyes  were  not  horny,  like  the  eyes  of  the  trilobite, 
and  therefore  they  are  not  preserved  in  the  petri- 
faction. But  round  the  large  cavities  of  the  eye- 
sockets  are  circular  appendages  of  bone  which 
could  be  drawn  out — one  over  the  other — so  as  to 
give  the  eyes  a telescopic  power,  and  enable  this 
huge  creature  to  see  afar  off,  or  into  the  depths  of 
the  sea, — or,  the  large  eyes  might  be  lamps  of  light, 
and  enable  it  to  see  in  darkness.  The  bony 
appendages  round  the  eye  are  a similar  provision 
to  that  of  the  large  birds  of  prey  living  in  our  own 
time, — birds  which  have  no  sense  of  smell,  but  arc 


lOO 


GOD,  THE  GREAT  MECHANICIAN. 


thus  able  to  see  the  dead  carcase  of  a horse  or  an 
ox,  at  the  distance  of  several  miles, — birds  such  as 
the  condor,  in  South  America. 

While  the  eyes  of  both  extinct  and  living  crea- 
tures thus  lead  us  again  to  think  of  God  as  the 
Almighty  and  All-wise  Optician,  the  jaws  of  the 
Ichthyosaurus  compel  us  to  regard  Him  as  the 
sovereign  Mechanician.  For  ready  seizing  of  its 
prey,  thick  and  clumsily-formed  jaws  would  not 
have  helped  this  destructive  creature.  So  the  jaws 
are  slender.  But,  slender  jaws,  six  feet  in  length, 
would  have  been  likely  to  snap  asunder  while  the 
animal  was  seizing  some  strong  crustacean.  Did 
you  ever  note  the  springs  of  a railway  carriage  or 
engine,  or  coach-springs  ? The  Ichthyosaurus  has 
three  bones  constructed  on  the  principle  of  such 
springs,  on  each  side  of  the  under-jaw,  to  give  it 
the  elastic  force  of  a spring,  and  prevent  it  from 
breaking. 

Thus  God  stores  His  creation,  both  in  the  past 
and  in  the  present,  with  what  we  call  ‘ design  and 
contrivance.’  ‘‘  Is  it  not  a proof  of  weakness  in 
God,”  I once  heard  a sceptical  advocate  say, 

that  He  had  to  design  and  contrive  in  order  to 


GOD,  THE  GREAT  GEOMETRICIAN. 


lOI 


make  things  ? The  question  seemed  to  me  to  be 
no  proof  of  the  man’s  ingenuity,  but  only  of  his 
perversity.  A moment’s  real  reflection  would  have 
taught  him  that  an  Almighty  and  All-wise  Being 
has  not  to  think  and  think  on,  in  order  to  design 
and  contrive — like  man  with  his  limited  intelligence; 
but  that  the  Almighty  and  All-wise  One  stores  His 
creation  with  these  signs  of  design  and  contrivance 
to  lead  us  to  the  perception  of  His  wisdom  and 
power.  It  is  thus  that  the  invisible  things  of 
Him,  from  the  creation  of  the  world,  are  clearly 
seen,  being  understood  by  the  things  which  are 
made  : even  His  eternal  power  and  Godhead.” 

Plato  calls  God  the  Great  Geometrician  or 
Mathematician.  And  who  that  marks  the  order, 
the  symmetry,  the  shapeableness,  the  delicacy  and 
perfection  of  adjustment,  the  exquisite  exactness  of 
fittings  together  of  parts,  and  the  unspeakable 
beauty  of  finish,  in  the  works  of  the  Almighty  and 
All- wise  Architect  of  this  universe  can  fail  to  ac- 
knowledge the  just  and  true  application  of  the 
terms  used  by  the  great  Athenian  philosopher? 

But  you  forget  that  you  raise  another  troublous 
thought  in  our  minds  by  describing  this  ancient 


102 


SYSTEM  OF  PREY,  A MYSTERY. 


destructive  fish-lizard,^’  says  another:  ‘‘why  did 
God  compose  His  creation  of  animals  to  destroy 
and  animals  to  be  destroyed?”-  I wish  1 could 
answer  your  question  fully.  But  I can  only  give 
the  partial  replies  to  it  that  I have  often  given  in 
your  hearing  and  in  the  hearing  of  others,  and  I 
need  not  repeat  them  here.  I wait — with  you  who 
share  my  Christian  hope  and  trust — to  have  the 
full  solution  of  the  difficulty  when,  having  been  un- 
clothed, we  shall  be  clothed  upon  with  immortality, 
in  the  heaven  Christ  has  promised  to  us.  I will 
only  say  that,  with  regard  to  our  present  life,  I 
never  shared  the  gloomy  thoughts  of  John  Stuart 
Mill.  The  sum  of  the  happiness  of  God’s  earthly 
creation  is,  to  my  mind,  unmeasurably  over  and 
above  the  quantum  of  suffering  there  is  in  it. 

1 must  refer  you  to  Sir  Charles  Lyell’s,  or  other 
geological  treatises,  for  descriptions  of  other 
gigantic  fish-lizards  of  the  Mesozoic  period — the 
Megalosaurus^  Teleosaurics,  Ste7ieosaurus^  and  Plio~ 
saurus  ; the  Mosasaurus,  which  was  fifty  feet  long ; 
the  Plesiosaurus^  with  its  enormous  long  neck,  in 
which'  were  thirty-three  vertebrae  ; and,  above  all, 
the  Ceieosaurus  (or  whale-like  lizard),  which  was 


WONDERS  OF  THE  CHALK. 


103 


seventy  feet  long,  and  of  which  Professor  Phillips 
placed  a grand  petrifaction  in  the  Oxford  Museum. 
Dr.  Dawson  says  that  it  must  have  been  a land 
animal.  Perhaps  the  strangest  creature  of  all  was 
the  Pterodactyl — a flying  animal  with  a head  and 
beak  like  a bird,  yet  with  sixty  conical  teeth, 
immense  eyes  which  are  supposed  to  have  enabled 
it  to  see  and  fly  by  night,  and  huge  wings  that  must 
have  been  membranous. 

A word  or  two  respecting  the  great  Chalk  strata. 
The  dredgings  in  the  Atlantic,  by  the  naturalists 
who  went  out  in  the  ship  ‘ Challenger,’  have 
recently  shown  that  the  bottom  of  the  ocean  is 
covered  to  a very  great  depth  with  chalky  mud, 
formed  chiefly  of  microscopical  shells  of  Globigerina^ 
and  other  genera  of  what  are  called  Foraininifera^ 
which,  we  know,  also  swarmed  in  the  seas  of  the 
Cretaceous  period.  White  chalk  is  carbonate  o^ 
lime,  and  is  chiefly  made  up  of  the  fragments  of 
minute  shells — the  coverings  of  Foraminifera, 
chiefly  of  the  genus  Globigerina,  Some  of  our 
chalk  beds  are  over  a thousand  feet,  it  is  said,  in 
thickness.  What  an  idea  of  the  creation  of  God 


t04 


CHALK,  AND  GREAT  SUBSIDENCE. 


is  presented  to  us  by  such  an  account ! The 
thought  of  the  incalculable  millions  of  li\es  ol 
minute  creatures,  and  of  their  being  succeeded, 
again  and  again,  by  still  more  incalculable  millions, 
in  past  ages,  seems  to  make  us  stagger  and  reel  in 
attempting  to  form  an  adequate  idea  of  the  Creator's 
power  and  its  boundlessness. 

Geologists  say  that  there  was  a slow  subsi- 
dence of  a large  part  of  the  earth’s  surface,  at  the 
beginning  of  the  Cretaceous  period;  and,  then, 
a ‘crumpling  of  the  crust,'  and  elevation  of  the 
highest  mountain  ranges — the  Himalayas,  the 
Andes,  and  the  Alps,  in  the  Tertiary,  or  Kainozoic 
period,  that  followed. 


ANOTHER  GREAT  ‘ UNCON FORMITY/ 


105 


IX. 

THE  TERTIARY  OR  KAINOZOIC  FORMATION  : ORDER 
OF  POSITION,  AND  BRIEF  DESCRIPTION  OF  ITS 
LAYERS,  OR  STRATA. 

‘ 7^  AINOZOIC^  denotes  the  petrifactions  of 
A V newer  period-life.  Again,  I must  remind 
you  of  the  ‘ unconformity  ^ which  led  men  of  science 
to  separate  the  Mesozoic  from  the  Kainozoic.  To 
quote  the  words  of  a skilful  geologist  whom  I have 
the  pleasure  to  name  as  a friend  of  more  than 
thirty  years'  standing — Mr.  Samuel  Sharp,  the  author 
of  the  most  perfect  ‘ Rudiments  of  Geology ' in  the 
English  language : — 

‘‘  The  break  between  the  two,  as  indicated  by 
the  utter  change  in  animal  and  vegetable  life,  is  so 
complete  as  to  be  without  parallel  in  the  earth’s 
geological  history.  . . . Not  a species  (except  some 

perhaps  of  microscopic  forms,)  whether  of  Mollusc, 
8 


I06  DIVISIONS  OF  THE  KAINOZOIC. 

or  Cephalopod,  or  Fish,  or  Reptile,  or  Mammal,  or 
Plant,  of  former  periods,  has  remained  : the  whole 
world  of  life  has  changed.  A vast  gulf  intervenes, 
as  yet  unbridged  by  science — a lapse  of  time  so 
great  as  perhaps  to  equal  that  which  separates 
the  earliest  Tertiary  age  from  our  own  day. 

Of  this  great  interval,  of  its  physical  pheno- 
mena, of  its  life  changes,  we  know  nothing.  Whole 
generations  and  families  of  living  things  may  have 
come  into  being  and  passed  away,  continents  may 
have  given  way  to  oceans,  and  oceans  to  continents, 
whole  ranges  of  mountains  may  have  raised  their 
lofty  peaks,  and  again  subsided  into  plains,  during 
this  mighty  hiatus  which  human  knowledge  has 
failed  to  fill.” 

The  Tertiary  formation  has  been  divided  into 
the  ‘Eocene,^  ‘ Miocene,’  ‘ Pliocene,’  and  ‘ Pleisto- 
cene ’ strata,  by  Sir  Charles  Lyell  j but  the 
Pleistocene  is,  of  late,  included  under  the  new 
term  ‘ Quaternary  ^ formation,  which  is  meant 
also  to  include  the  soil  which  has  always  been 
considered  as  alluvial.  Eocene  means  early  iieiVy 
and  the  other  terms  mean  middle^  late^  and  later- 


new. 


THE  EOCENE  AND  MIOCENE.  10^ 

1.  The  ‘Eocene’  comprises  the  London  clay, 
which  is  visible  at  Highgate,  passes  under  the  metro- 
polis, and  reappears  in  the  Isle  of  Sheppy  and  the 
northern  part  of  Kent  : it  also  extends  over  parts 
of  Middlesex,  Berkshire,  Hampshire,  Dorset  and 
Wilts,  Surrey  and  Sussex,  a small  part  of  Suffolk, 
and  the  greater  part  of  Essex.  In  France,  the 
‘ Eocene  ’ includes  the  calcaire  grassier^  and  the 
gypsum  beds  of  Montmartre,  in  which  were  found 
the  petrifactions  of  Pachydermatous  animals  fore- 
told by  Cuvier.  In  the  ‘ Eocene  ’ is  also  included 
the  Nummulite  limestone,  which  enters  largely 
into  the  composition  of  the  Alps,  the  Pyrenees, 
the  Carpathians,  and  the  Himalayas,  and  some  of 
the  North  American  mountains — while  the  sphynx 
and  several  of  the  Egyptian  pyramids  were  formed 
out  of  it. 

2.  The  ‘ Miocene  ’ is  almost  limited,  in  this 
country,  to  Hampshire  and  the  Isle  of  Wight ; but 
it  is  extensive  abroad,  being  found  as  a thick 
stratum  in  Switzerland,  France,  Belgium,  Croatia, 
and  some  parts  of  Germany,  Itcdy,  and  Greece  ; it 
is  also  found  in  the  Siwalik  Hills  of  India,  and  in 
the  United  States  of  America. 


Io8  THE  LAYER  CALLED  ‘ PLIOCENE.* 

3.  The  ‘Pliocene^  is  found  in  Essex,  Suffolk, 
and  Norfolk,  where  it  is  named  Red  Crag  and 
Coral  Crag ; and  it  is  extensive  in  Italy.  The 
Black  Crag  of  Belgium  is  also  held  to  belong  to 
the  ‘ Pliocene ; * and  so  is  a part  of  the  stratum 
in  eastern  parts  of  the  United  States.  In  Sicily, 
the  ‘ Pliocene  ^ covers  nearly  half  the  island.  Sir 
Charles  Lyell  says  that  since  the  accumulation  of 
these  beds,  the  whole  cone  of  Etna  (11,000  feet  in 
height,  and  ninety  miles  in  circumference  at  its 
base,)  has  been  slowly  built  up.” 


TEGETATION  OF  THE  KAINOZOIC. 


109 


X. 


PETRIFACTIONS  FOUND  IN  THE  TERTIARY  OR 
KAINOZOIC  FORMATION. 

HE  vegetable  kingdom,  in  this  period, 


^ must  have  been  richer  even  than  in  our  own. 
Lardner,  in  his  ‘ Popular  Geology,^  Hugh  Miller, 
and  other  practical  geologists,  give  us  gorgeous 
pictures  of  the  flora  of  the  Kainozoic  formation. 
Agassiz,  who  may  be  considered  a witness  of  the 
first  rank  as  to  the  ‘Testimony  of  the  Rocks,’ 
affirms  that  the  botanical  order  Rosacece — which 
includes  not  only  the  roses  and  potentillas,  but  so 
many  of  our  edible  fruits,  the  bramble,  raspberry, 
strawberry,  apple,  pear,  quince,  cherry,  plum,  peach, 
apricot,  nectarine,  and  almond — was  one  of  the 
last  creations  of  the  Kainozoic,  or  was  introduced 
but  a little  time  before  Man  appeared  on  the  earth. 
The  polar  regions,  as  well  as  the  tropics,  shared 


no 


ANIMALS  OF  THE  KAINOZOIC. 


the  luxuriance  of  vegetation,  in  the  Tertiary 
period. 

With  the  exception  of  a few  petrifactions  held  to 
have  belonged  to  Marsupials,  in  the  Mesozoic,  no 
signs  of  the  life  of  Mammalian  animals  have  been 
discovered  till  we  come  to  the  Kainozoic  forma- 
tion. The  petrified  remains  of  creatures  allied  to 
every  order  of  animals  that  suckle  their  young, 
except  Man,  have  been  found  in  the  Tertiary 
formation,  in  our  own  country : the  elephant, 
rhinoceros,  hippopotamus,  tapir,  swine,  horse,  ox, 
bear,  beaver,  otter,  deer,  dog,  whale,  porpoise,  and 
many  of  the  smaller  four-footed  creatures,  have  all 
their  representatives  among  the  stony  relics  of  this 
period.  Petrifactions  of  birds  are  not  so  numerous 
as  those  of  mammalian  animals.  But  I must  leave 
you  to  gather  more  full  and  particular  information 
from  Lyell  and  other  treatises,  in  order  that  I may 
have  a little  time  to  attend  to  a theory  which  is  of 
great  importance. 


THE  GLACIAL  OR  ICE  PERIOD. 


Ill 


XI, 


THE  GLACIAL  THEORY,  AND  THE  GENERAL  QUESTION 
OF  THE  AGE  OF  THE  EARTH. 

'O  be  told  that  there  was  a period,  in  the 


-A  history  of  this  globe,  when  Scotland  to  its 
southern  extremity  was  covered  with  ice  two  thou- 
sand feet  thick,  is  a cause  of  great  wonderment  to 
people  who  hear  of  it  for  the  first  time.  And  the 
wonder  increases  when  they  read  that  Sir  Charles 
Lyell  says,  in  his  carefully  constructed  book  ‘ The 
Student’s  Manual  of  Geology  ’ — ‘‘  We  are  gradually 
obtaining  proofs  of  the  larger  part  of  England, 
north  of  aline  drawn  from  the  mouth  of  the  Thames 
to  the  Bristol  Channel,  having  been  under  the  sea, 
and  traversed  by  floating  ice,  since  the  commence- 
ment of  the  Glacial  Period. And  when  you  are 
told  that  a large  part  of  North  America,  and  of 
Norway  and  Sweden,  and  Northern  Russia  and 


II2 


MARKS  OF  THE  GLACIAL  PERIOD. 


Denmark,  have  been,  at  one  time,  also  covered 
with  this  colossal  layer  of  ice,  the  statement  seems 
startling. 

Yet  the  Glacial  or  Ice  Period  is  considered  to 
be  an  historical  fact,  by  very  solid  deduction  from 
oth^r  facts.  The  formation  of  glaciers,  or  immense 
fields  of  ice,  between  two  chains  of  hills,  is  a 
familiar  sight  to  tourists  in  Switzerland.  These 
ice -masses,  or  glaciers,  are  slowly  but  constantly 
moving,  until  they  melt ; and  then  they  leave,  all 
along  the  middle  of  their  path,  a huge  heap  of 
fragments  of  rock,  roots  and  boles  of  trees,  and 
clay.  These  long  piles  of  detritus  are  called 
* moraines.’  Now  these  moraines  are  also  found 
in  Scotland,  between  the  chains  of  the  Grampians, 
and  also  in  Sweden,  North  America,  and  Northern 
Russia ; and  it  is  argued  that  they  have  had  a 
similar  cause  to  that  of  the  Swiss  moraines.  Im- 
mense grooves  are  also  observed  on  the  sides  of 
the  Scottish,  Swedish,  and  other  mountains ; and 
these  are  believed  to  be  owing  to  the  pressure  and 
grinding  of  icebergs. 

From  these,  and  other  phenomena,  geologists 
conclude  that  the  greater  part  of  our  island,  Ireland, 


DIFFERENT  THEORIES  ABOUT  IT. 


”3 


Sweden,  and  the  lands  I have  just  named,  were  at 
one  time  covered  with  ice,  at  least  2000  feet  in 
thickness.  Ireland,  they  judge,  was  once  one  with 
Great  Britain ; and  Great  Britain  was  one  with 
France,  until  the  occurrence  of  some  great  com- 
motion that  drove  us  all  asunder.  Animals,  it  is 
believed,  passed  southward,  easily,  as  the  ice  ap- 
proached, when  there  were  no  Straits  of  Dover — 
no  English  Channel.  It  is  also  held  that  they  did 
this  several  times — for  the  Glacial  periods  have 
occurred  again  and  again,  and  will  again  occur,  it 
is  affirmed. 

Various  theories  have  been  formed  as  to  the 
cause  of  this  marvellous  glacial  visitation.  Hopkins 
attributed  it  to  “ variation  in  the  intensity  of  the 
sun’s  radiation.”  Another  theorist  held  the  cause 
to  be  “ the  passing  of  our  solar  system,  alternately, 
into  cooler  and  warmer  space.”  Sir  John  Lubbock 
tells  us  that  his  father  held  that  the  glacial  visitation 
was  caused  by  an  alteration  in  our  Earth’s  axis, 
arising  from  upheavals  and  depressions  of  great 
magnitude  on  its  surface.  A fourth  theory  is  that 
the  Glacial  period  occurred  v\hen  the  gulf  stream 
had  not  yet  warmed  Europe.  A fifth  theory 


1 14  the  theory  of  m.  adhrmar. 

maintains  that  the  Sahara,  or  great  African  desert, 
was  formerly  a part  of  the  Atlantic — when  th( 
Fohn — the  dry,  burning  wind  which  now  strips 
the  snow  from  the  Alps,  would  be  a moist,  dam) 
wind,  under  which  snow  and  ice  would  not  melt. 

In  spite  of  Sir  Charles  Lyell,  who  holds  that  the 
Glacial  period  occurred  800,000  years  ago,  and 
of  Sir  John  Lubbock,  who  contends  that  it  was 
200,000  years  ago,  a sixth  theorist— M.  Adhemar — 
maintains  that  the  great  Ice  visitation  depends  on 
what  is  called  ‘ the  Precession  of  the  equinoxes,’ 
which  takes  21,000  years  for  its  accomplishment. 
M.  Adhemar  is  confident  that  only  11,120  years 
have  passed  since  the  last  Glacial  period ; that 
the  climate  of  our  northern  hemisphere  had  been 
warmer  up  to  a.d.  1248 — now  630  years  ago  ; that 
it  has  been  cooling  since  that  time  \ and,  of  course, 
that  the  frightful  Glacial  period  will  return  in 
another  10,000  years.  Though  none  of  us  will  be 
‘ in  the  flesh  ’ then,  yet  a return  of  such  a visita- 
tion is  not  pleasant  to  contemplate. 

But  where  theories  are  so  various, — although 
the  theorists  are,  each  and  all,  considered  to 
be  ‘ experts  ’ in  the  geological  or  other  scientific 


CREDULITY  OF  GEOLOGISTS. 


II5 


line — one  cannot  regard  the  return  of  the  Glacial 
period  as  a coming  event  of  complete  certainly. 
And  it  is  for  the  same  reason — that  is  to  say.  the 
diversity  of  opinion  among  men  of  science,  that 
we  can  come  to  no  settled  opinion  respecting  the 
age  of  the  Earth.  Sir  Charles  Lyell  held  that  two 
hundred  and  forty  millions  of  years  have  elapsed 
since  the  beginning  of  the  Cambrian  period — 
while  Mr.  Darwin  thinks  that  “ a far  longer 
period  than  three  hundred  millions  of  years  has 
elapsed  since  the  latter  part  of  the  secondary 
period  ” — that  is  to  say,  since  the  existence  of  the 
higher  Chalk  stratum,  a calculation  that  would 
lead  one  to  suppose  Mr.  Darwin  would  date  the 
beginning  of  the  Cambrian  period  a billion  of 
years  ago  ! Other  naturalists  and  geologists  main- 
tain the  same  high  rate  of  figures  respecting  the 
age  of  the  Earth. 

The  positive  denial  given  by  our  great  mathe- 
maticians to  the  truth  of  these  high  figures  is 
remarkable.  The  theory  of  Helmholtz — that  the 
sun  has  been  formed  by  a nebulous  revolving 
mass,  filling  a space  far  greater  than  that  of  the 
solar  system,  and  condensed  by  the  attraction  of 


Il6  MATHEMATICIANS  DECIDE 

gravitation, — is  held  to  be  the  most  probable  theory 
as  to  the  source  of  the  Sun’s  heat.  Now,  as  the 
Sun  radiates  his  heat  to  the  bodies  of  the  solar 
system,  it  is  argued  that  he  must  be  cooling  ; and 
that  he  cannot  have  been  giving  out  his  heat  at  the 
same  rate  as  at  present  for  more  than  a /ew  millions 
of  years.  Therefore,  reasons  Sir  William  Thomson, 
who  is  said  to  be  the  first  mathematician  in  Europe, 
‘‘the  existing  state  of  things  on  the  earth,  life  on 
the  earth,  and  all  geological  history  showing  con- 
tinuity of  life,  must  be  limited  within  some  such 
period  as  a hundred  millions  of  years.” 

Professor  Croll  cannot  grant  so  much.  He 
would  reduce  the  hundred  millions  to  forty  millions. 
But  Professor  Tait  is  inexorably  disposed  to  be  cruel 
with  Mr.  Darwin  and  Sir  Charles  Lyell.  He  sets 
aside  their  teaching  about  hundreds  of  millions  for 
the  existence  of  life  on  this  earth,  most  uncere- 
moniously, declaring  that  physical  considerations 
render  it  impossible  that  more  than  fe/i  or  fifteen 
millions  can  be  granted  1 About  ten  millions  of 
years  ago,  it  is  contended  by  this  new  school  of 
calculators,  the  surface  of  the  Earth  had  just  been 
consolidated;  and,  after  a few  thousand  years 


AGAINST  THE  GEOLOGISTS.  II7 

would  be  SO  far  cooled  as  to  permit  the  beginnings 
of  life.  But  if  we  go  back  a hundred  millions  of 
years,  the  Earth — if  it  existed  at  all — must  have  been 
in  a liquid  white  heat,  and  unfit  for  any  kind  or  form 
of  life  that  we  are  acquainted  with.  Amidst  such 
conflicting  opinions  of  the  highest  men  of  science, 
we  are  still  ‘ at  sea  ’ as  to  the  age  of  our  Earth  ; 
and  think  that  even  such  very  wise  men  would 
have  been  wiser  if  they  had  held  by  the  opinions 
of  some  of  the  older  geologists,  that  the  facts  of 
geology  give  no  evidence  as  to  time. 

We  can  only  hold  by  the  conviction  from  the 
repetition  of  tropical  and  temperate  climates 
evident  from  the  layers  of  the  Earth,  even  in  our 
own  country, — from  the  fact,  which  cannot  be 
doubted,  that  sea  has  often  been  land,  and  land 
been  sea,  in  the  past;  and  that  upheavals  and 
submersions  of  land  go  on  very  slowly,  in  our  own 
time, — that  only  immense  periods  of  time  will 
account  for  it  all. 

One  question  will  have  been  in  the  minds  of 
many  of  you  while  I have  been  talking : Is  what 
we  are  listening  to  in  consistence  with  the  teachings 
of  our  Bible.?  Nor  will  another  question  have 


ii8 


A QUESTION  DEFERRED. 


been  forgotten : What  about  man  ? While  you 
have  been  affirming  that  petrifactions  of  the  crea- 
tures, from  an  insect  to  an  elephant,  have  been 
found  in  countless  numbers,  reckoning  the  Primary, 
Secondary,  and  Tertiary  formations  together, — has 
no  petrifaction  of  a human  form  been  found  in  any 
of  them  ? 

I purpose  giving  you  distinct  "and  unhesitating 
answers  to  these  important  questions  to-morrow 
night. 


THE  MOSAIC  RECORD  OF  CREATION. 


•7 


■ K 


'V' 


TABLE  OF  CONTENTS. 


I. 

PAGE 

\UTHORSHIP  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH  . , • . I24 

II. 

WHAT  WERE  THE  ‘ DAYS  ^ OF  CREATION  » » • I29 

III. 

RECORD  OF  CREATION  : FIRST  DAY  , » » . I32 

IV. 

RECORD  OF  CREATION;  SECOND  DAY.  , , . I38 

V. 

RECORD  OF  CREATION  : THIRD  DAY  . » . .145 

VI. 

RECORD  OF  CREATION  : FOURTH  DAY  , , *152 

VII. 

RECORD  OF  CREATION  : FIFTH  DAY  • • » . I56 

VIII. 

RECORD  OF  CREATION  : SIXTH  DAY  ....  I59 


9 


122 


TABLE  OF  CONTENTS. 


IX. 

PAGE 

THE  SEVENTH  DAY  : THE  REST  OF  GOD,  AND  REST 

OF  MAN  ' 164 

X. 

CONSIDERATION  OF  SOME  OBJECTIONS  « • . 168 

XI. 

THE  AGE  OF  MAN  : THE  BONE  CAVES  : THE  SUPPOSED 

‘FLINT  IMPLExMENTS  ’ I7I 


XII. 

Haeckel’s  pedigree  of  man  : weakness  and  folly 

OF  THE  DOCTRINE  OF  EVOLUTION  . . . 181 


THE  MOSAIC  RECORD  OF 
CREATION. 


I OPEN  the  Bible  at  the  first  chapter  of  Genesis, 
to-night, — a somewhat  novel  proceeding  for  a 
lecturer, — because  I have  undertaken,  as  a first 
duty,  to  show  that  what  we  call  ‘ The  Mosaic 
Record  of  Creation ' is  not  disproven  by  modern 
discovery.  I do  not  undertake  to  show  that  this 
first  chapter  of  Genesis  is  in  accordance  with  all 
the  fanciful  theories  .of-  Mr.  Darwin,  or  all  the  wild 
calculations  of  Sir  Charles  Lyell.  But  I do  mean 
to  show  that  it  is  perfectly  reconcileable  with  what 
is  called  the  Nebular  Theory  of  Laplace,  with  Sir 
Isaac  Newton’s  doctrine  of  Gravitation,  with  the 
intelligent  theory  of  Helmholtz  respecting  the 
source  cf  the  Sun’s  heat,  and  with  all  the  true 
teachings  of  Geology. 


MOSES,  A^D  THE  PENTATEUCH. 


1X4 


I. 


AUTHORSHIP  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH. 

FEW  preliminary  words,  please,  as  to  what 


we  mean  when  we  call  these  ^ The  Five 
Books  of  Moses.’  We  often  mention  a book  as 
the  work  of  one  man,  while,  at  the  same  time,  we 
know  that  a part,  or  parts,  of  the  book  are  not  to 
be  really  accounted  as  his.  Now,  we  cannot  mean 
that  Moses  wrote  every  part  of  these  five  books — • 
for  the  death  of  Moses,  and  also  his  burial,  are 
recorded  in  the  last  chapter  of  Deuteronomy — 
and  Moses  could  not  make  that  record.  The 
phrase  “as  it  is  unto  this  day,”  which  is  often  met 
with  in  these  books,  also  shows  that  a later  hand 
than  that  of  Moses  has  sometimes  been  employed 
in  them.  The  Jews,  doubtless,  give  us  the  true 
tradition,  when  they  tell  us  that  Ezra  ‘ the  scribe’ 
inserted  this  phrase,  when  new  copies  of  the  Torah, 


COLENSO,  AND  GERMAN  THEORIES. 


125 


or  Law,  were  written  out  for  the  use  of  many  who 
had  been  born  in  captivity,  and  were  strangers  in 
the  land  of  their  fathers. 

You  will  remember  the  excitement  Colenso 
raised  in  this  country  a few  years  ago,  by  trying  to 
popularize  among  us  the  German  theory  about 
ancient  Elohistic  and  Jehovistic  documents  having 
been  clumsily  dovetailed  into  one,  by  a later  writer, 
to  form  this  Pentateuch.  Colenso  told  us  that  he 
believed  that  writer  to  be  the  prophet  Samuel — 
though  he  had  no  more  authority  for  his  belief 
than  he  had  for  attributing  this  imaginary  dove- 
tailing to  Balaam’s  ass,  if  the  whim  had  seized  him 
to  do  that.  The  attempt  by  the  Bishop  of  Natal 
to  destroy  our  faith  in  the  genuineness  and  authen- 
ticity of  the  first  five  books  of  the  Bible  was  a 
miserable  failure.  We  still  hold  that  there  is  the 
Divine  stamp  upon  them ; and  yet  we  discern  what 
we  consider  to  be  strong  evidence  that  several  of 
the  opening  chapters  of  the  Pentateuch  were  not, 
originally,  the  composition  of  Moses, — although 
we  do  not  doubt  that  they  were  arranged  in  their 
present  order  by  his  hand.  They  are,  evidently, 
short  documents  by  different  authors. 


126 


SHORT  INDEPENDENT  DOCUMENTS 


Our  first  chapter  of  Genesis,  and  the  first  three 
verses  of  the  second  chapter,  form  one  indepen- 
dent and  general  account  of  the  Creation  : in  it, 
the  Creator  is  called  by  one  name — Elohim^  which 
is  a plural  word,  and  whenever  it  is  used  to  desig- 
nate God,  it  is  united  to  a singular  verb— in  order, 
as  we  believe,  to  express  the  act  of  the  Triune 
Deity.  The  second  independent  document  begins 
with  the  fourth  verse  of  the  second  chapter,  and 
closes  at  the  end  of  the  third  chapter : in  it  the 
Divine  Being  is  described  by  two  names — Jehovah 
Elohim ; and,  now,  a more  particular  account  is 
given  of  the  creation  of  Man  and  Woman,  and  of 
the  primal  temptation  and  fall  of  our  first  parents. 
The  third  independent  document  consists  of  our 
fourth  chapter : and  in  it  the  Divinity  is  named  by 
one  word — Jehovah.  Many  of  you,  no  doubt,  are 
w^ell  acquainted  with  all  this  ; and  you  also  know 
that  there  are  marks  of  independent  composition 
in  several  of  the  chapters  following. 

I beg  to  state  to  such  of  you  as  may  not  have 
heard  of  it,  that,  respecting  the  authorship  of  these 
chapters,  there  is  a very  probable  theory  held  by 
Christian  men  of  high  intelligence  and  large  Hebrew 


AT  THE  BEGINNING  OF  GENESIS. 


127 


learning.  It  is,  that  these  short,  independent  docu- 
ments, and  also  some  longer  records  which  follow 
them,  were  composed  by  the  early  Patriarchs  ; — 
were  preserved  in  what  may  be  called  * the  Sacred 
Family’ — the  family  from  which  Messiah  should, 
in  due  time,  be  born ; — were  handed  down, 
through  Abraham  and  his  descendants,  to  the 
heads  of  the  tribes,  in  Egypt; — and  thus  came 
into  the  possession  of  Moses,  who  prefixed  them, 
in  the  order  in  which  they  were  composed,  to  the 
larger  work  on  the  Exodus  an(^  Wanderings  of  the 
Children  of  Israel,  and  on  God’s  dealings  with 
them,  which  the  Jewish  legislator  and  leader  him- 
self undertook  and  performed.  The  first  short 
document  is,  no  doubt,  derived  from  Adam  him- 
self: the  other  documents  are  held  to  have  had 
Seth,  Noah,  and  others,  for  their  authors. 

No  amazement  ought  to  be  felt  when  it  is  main- 
tained that  this  short,  general  account  of  the 
creation,  contained  in  this  first  chapter  and  three 
verses  of  the  second  chapter  of  Genesis,  is  the 
work  of  our  great  progenitor  Adam.  Who  was 
more  likely  to  feel  curiosity  as  to  his  own  origin, 
and  the  origin  of  all  things  around  him.  than  the 


128 


THE  VISIONS  OF  ADAM. 


first  man?  To  whom  would  his  Maker  be  so 
likely  to  impart  the  positive  knowledge  that  would 
satisfy  his  own  curiosity,  and  also  enable  him  to 
give  the  right  knowledge  to  his  descendants,  as  to 
the  first  man — the  head  of  his  race  ? 

But  how  was  this  knowledge  imparted  to  Adam  ? 
it  will  be  asked.  Our  Milton,  you  know,  repre- 
sents ‘the  affable  archangel,’  as  he  calls  Raphael, 
delighting  our  great  forefather  by  giving  him  the 
narrative  of  Creation.  Revelations  of  a super- 
natural character  are,  however,  represented,  in 
Scripture,  as  made  by  vision.  With  all  my  love 
and  reverence  for  the  great  soul  of  Milton,  I can- 
not help,  therefore,  concluding  that  this  super- 
natural revelation — for  it  cannot  be  called  ‘ his- 
tory,’ you  know — was  made  to  Adam  in  a series 
of  visions  occupying  the  ‘ evening  ’ and  the  ‘ morn- 
ing ’ of  six  successive  days  of  Adam.  Another 
important  question  now  arises — Were  the  ‘days* 
of  Creation  like  Adam’s  days  and  our  days  ? 


MANY  MEANINGS  OF  ‘DAY/ 


129 


II 

WHAT  WERE  THE  ‘ DAYS  ^ OF  CREATION? 

I NEED  not  remind  you  of  the  many  names 
of  religious  writers  who  hold  to  the  notion 
that  the  Creation-days  were  each  twenty- four  hours 
long.  I imagine  your  own  reading  of  this  first 
chapter  of  Genesis  must  have  shown  you  that  the 
word  ‘ day  ’ is  used  in  two  senses,  in  one  verse — 
the  fifth : first,  to  denote  the  light,  and  then  to 
denote  the  evening  and  morning  joined.  In  the 
fourth  verse  of  the  second  chapter,  ‘ day  ^ is  used 
to  describe  the  whole  period  of  Creation.  So 
there  are  three  meanings  to  the  word  within  a 
small  compass. 

The  phrase  ‘ as  it  is  unto  this  day,*  already 
mentioned,  gives  a fourth  and  looser  meaning. 
The  fact  is,  that  the  Hebrew  word  ‘yom’  is  just 
as  variable  in  its  uses  as  our  word  ‘ day,’  or  anj 


130 


THE  ‘days’  of  creation 


rvord  in  any  other  language  which  is  commonly 
used  for  a day.  So  that  no  reason  for  making 
each  period  of  Creation  consist  just  of  twenty- 
four  hours  can  be  founded  on  the  common  use  of 
the  word. 

That  there  could  be  no  day  of  twenty-four 
hours  before  the  formation  of  the  Sun — which  the 
sacred  record  declares  was  not  before  the  fourth 
day — needs  no  argument  to  prove.  One  writer, 
fearful  of  losing  his  reputation  for  orthodoxy, 
strove  to  persuade  his  readers  that  all  which 
Geology  shows  us  has  ready  occurred  in  the  his- 
tory of  the  earth,  should  be  placed  betw^een  the 
first  and  second  verses  of  this  first  chapter  of 
Genesis ; and  then  we  should  understand  the 
remainder  of  the  chapter  as  relating  to  the  entire 
re-arrangement  of  things  in  six  days  of  twenty-four 
hours  each,  just  before  man’s  creation.  No  such 
preposterous  theory  can  be  maintained  now. 
What  Cuvier,  and  De  Luc,  and  Jameson,  and 
Hugh  Miller,  and  others,  fearlessly  taught  from  the 
first,  meets  with  few  sensible  and  w^ell-informed 
objectors  at  the  present  time.  That  the  term 
‘day  ’ is  to  be  taken  as  meaning  a period  to  which 


MUST  HAVE  BEEN  PERIODS.  13 1 

no  man  of  science,  however  great  his  reputation, 
has  a right  to  assign  any  definitive  duration — is 
generally  received  as  a truth — a settled  fact — in 
our  own  ‘ day/ 

‘‘A  settled  fact” — some  of  you  will  whisper — 
‘‘settled  facts  are  often  sorely  unsettled,  you  know.” 
Just  so  : and  I do  not  wish  to  say  you  are  not  to 
think  about  it.  But,  I respectfully  remind  you 
that,  when  a clear  and  sensible  reconciliation  of 
Science  with  Revelation  is  offered,  there  can  be  no 
worthy  reason  for  rejecting  it 


132 


HOW  THE  RECORD  OF  CREATION 


III. 


RECORD  OF  CREATION  : THE  FIRST  DAY. 

ET  US  now  enter  on  the  reading  of  the  record. 


^ ^ I shall  have  to  mention  Hebrew  words  to 
you.  to-night.  But  I beg  of  you  to  understand 
that  I do  not  profess  to  be  a profound  Hebrew 
scholar.  I have  had  too  many  things  to  learn,  in 
order  to  teach  others ; and  my  life  has  been  too 
full  of  vicissitude  to  admit  of  my  becoming  pro- 
found in  the  knowledge  of  any  language.  Those 
of  you  who  have  read  the  humble  story  I have 
given  of  my  own  life  know  that,  fifty  years  ago, — 
while  bending  over  the  last  and  wielding  the  awl, 
— I taught  myself  the  elements  of  Hebrew,  Greek, 
Latin,  and  French.  I have  no  time,  now,  to  look 
into  a Greek  classic;  but  I read  my  Greek  Testa- 
ment every  morning  of  my  life — unless  I have  to 
travel  very  early, — and  I always  read  sweet  J ohn 


BEGINS,  IN  THE  ORIGINAL. 


133 


first.  He  brings  the  Saviour  so  near  to  me,  that 
I must  converse  with  him  first.  My  busy  life  also 
demands  that  I confine  myself  nearly  to  one  Latin 
book ; and  so  I always  carry  my  Latin  Virgil  about 
with  me,  to  keep  up  my  acquaintance  with  him. 
As  for  French,  one  meets  it,  more  or  less,  every 
week,  in  books  and  periodicals  : nor  would  I have 
you  think  that  I forget  my  Hebrew.  Yet  I shall 
trouble  you  very  little  with  it,  and  only  from  neces- 
sity shall  I use  it,  to  prove  myself  in  the  right. 

Berashith  bara  Elohim  eth  hashamayim  we-eth 
haaretz — begins  the  record.  “ In  beginning  created 
Elohim  the  heavens  and  the  earth. In  beginning,’' 
— not  ‘‘In  the  beginning.”  There  is  no  definite 
article;  and  the  great  majority  of  Hebrew  scholars 
maintain  that  it  is  omitted  on  purpose.  No  defi- 
nite time  is  signified.  The  word  ‘ beginning’  is  to 
be  taken  for  indefinite  previous  duration,  or  pre- 
vious eternity. 

The  vulgar  notion  is  that  the  Bible  says  our  Earth 
has  only  existed  about  7000  years ; but  there  is 
no  such  statement  in  the  Bible.  The  Bible  doe^' 
not  fix  the  age  of  the  Earth,  at  all.  Dr.  Chalmers, 
and  Dr.  Vaughan,  and  Dr.  Hamilton,  and  Thomas 


134 


TRUE  THEORY  OF  LAPLACE. 


Binney,  and  many  modern  divines,  as  well  as  Dear 
Buckland  and  Sedgwick,  have  stated  this  fact ; 
and  Origen  and  Augustine,  among  the  ancient 
Fathers,  and  even  our  own  Venerable  Bede,  main- 
tained it. 

But  in  what  state  did  God  create  the  heavens 
and  the  earth  ? The  answer  is — We-haaretz  haye- 
thah  thohu  wa-vohu  we-choshek  alpenei  thehbm. 

And  the  Earth  was  without  form  and  void,  and 
darkness  on  the  face  of  the  deep.”  There  was  no 
Earth,  in  the  proper  sense  of  the  word.  It  was  not 
formed.  The  matter  of  the  Solar  System  was  in 
the  form  of  cosmic  vapour,  according  to  the  theory 
of  Laplace — which,  I tell  you  plainly,  I hold  to  be 
a true  theory,  and  wish  I had  more  time  to  give 
you  all  the  reasons  for  my  belief. 

Our  progenitor’s  opening  vision  is  that  of  the 
formless  mass  of  matter  with  darkness  lying  upon 
it ; and,  next,  it  is  related — We-7'uach  Elohim  mera- 
chepheth  al-penei  ha-mayhn,  “ And  spirit  of  Elohim 
brooding  on  face  of  the  waters.’^  I do  not  fear  to 
tell  you  my  own  conceptions.  You  can  receive 
them,  or  smile  at  them,  as  you  please.  But  T think 
I have  Milton  on  my  side  in  what  I am  going  to 


THE  DOVE,  IN  ADAMES  VISION. 


T35 


say.  Remember,  he  was  a real  Hebrew  scholar — 
he  who  says, 

“ Thou  from  the  first 

Wast  present,  and  with  mighty  wings  outspread, 
Dove-like,  sat’st  brooding  on  the  vast  abyss, 

And  madest  it  pregnant.” 

My  conception  is,  that  Adam  saw  the  image  ol 
a dove  brooding  on  the  cosmic  vapour — just  as 
John  the  Baptist  saw  the  image  of  the  dove  de- 
scending on  Jesus;  and,  as  the  Divine  influence 
showed  Jchn  that  that  was  the  sign  he  had  been 
inspired  to  look  for — so  the  Divine  influence  in- 
formed Adam  that  what  he  saw  was  a sign  that 
God,  having  first  created  matter,  was  now  about 
to  form  it,  according  to  His  own  all-wise  purposes. 
Wa-yomer  Elohirn  yehi  aur ; wa-yehi  aur — are  the 
words  that  follow : ‘‘  And  said  Elohirn,  Let  there 
be  light,  and  there  was  light. 

When  the  Divine  command  had  been  made 
perceptible  to  Adam,  he  sees  the  vaporous  mass 
begin  to  revolve,  and  to  condense — for  God  has 
instituted  motion  and  gravitation  by  His  command; 
and,  from  the  collision  and  pressure  together  of 
the  revolving  and  condensing  particles,  heat  arises. 


136  BEFORE  MAN  LEFT  EDEN, 

and,  from  heat,  what  Laplace  calls  ‘ the  Cosmic 
Light.’ 

We  may  feel  sure  that  if  Voltaire  had  lived  in 
the  time  of  his  great  countryman,  Laplace,  he 
would  not  have  imitated  Celsus,  the  sceptic  of  the 
second  century,  in  laughing  at  the  idea  of  light 
existing  before  the  sun  existed.  Let  me  beg  of  you 
to  keep  in  mind  that  the  illustrious  author  of  the 
Mecanique  Celeste,  unfortunately,  was  an  atheist.  It 
was  his  science — not  his  unbelief — which  compelled 
him  to  maintain  that  light  existed  before  the  sun, 
and  thus  corroborate  the  truth  of  Biblical  science. 

The  narrative  proceeds  ; And  God  saw  the 
light,  that  it  was  good ; and  God  divided  between 
the  light  and  between  the  darkness.  And  God 
called  the  light  day,  and  the  darkness  He  called 
night.”  That  is  to  say,  God  taught  man  so  to  call 
them.  For  I hold — and  it  is  not  a new  theory,  nor 
a theory  of  fools — although  your  Ape-theory  people 
will  laugh  at  it — that  God  taught  man  language. 
And  in  teaching  the  creature  He  had  made,  God 
would  teach  Adam  something  worth  knowing  and 
retaining  in  mind  : to  connect  light  and  day  with 
purity,  and  uprightness,  and  truth,  and  the  beauty 


GOD  TAUGHT  HIM  LANGUAGE. 


137 


of  holiness  ; and  darkness  and  night  with  impurity, 
and  disorder,  and  confusion.  The  dividing  of  light 
from  darkness  has,  thus,  a great  meaning. 

Wa-yehi  erev  wa-yehi  voqer  ydm  echad,  ^‘And 
was  evening  and  was  morning  day  one,”  concludes 
the  narrative  of  Adam's  first  vision,  and  of  the 
first  period  of  God’s  creation.  The  evening  or 
night  disclosed  the  vision  of  chaos — of  matter  in 
its  elemental  form  of  atoms  and  molecules,  or 
cosmic  vapour ; and  the  morning  or  day  showed 
the  mass  set  in  motion — gravitation  instituted — 
and  heat  and  light  produced,  at  the  Divine  com- 
mand. I humbly  conceive  that  the  scriptural 
narrative  of  Adam’s  vision  shows  us  God’s  mode 
of  working  was  such  as  to  lead  us  to  see  nothing 
objectionable  in  the  Nebular  or  Cosmical  theory  of 
Laplace.  “ We  shall  be  better  able  to  judge  of 
that  as  you  go  on,”  I think  I hear  some  of  you 
saying,  who  do  not  like  to  be  in  a hurry  in  coming 
to  a conclusion.  You  are  quite  right.  Only,  I beg 
to  assure  you  that  I have  not  come  to  this  con- 
clusion in  a hurry.  I am  venturing  to  give  you, 
to-night,  the  result  of  the  silent  thinking  and  busy 

reading  of  years.  But  we  will  proceed. 

10 


138 


THE  SEPARATION  OF  THE  RINGS 


IV. 


record  of  creation  : the  second  day. 

second  day  of  creation  must  be  con- 
i sidered  as  consisting  of  an  ‘ evening  ’ and  a 
‘morning,’  like  the  first  day.  And  we  are  still  to 
regard  each  vision  as  occupying  a part  of  a night, 
and  a part  of  a day,  of  Adam.  The  beginning  of 
each  vision,  or  that  which  occurred  in  one  of  his 
nights,  it  seems  natural  to  conclude,  would  not 
seeiu  to  relate  so  nearly  to  what  concerned  Adam 
and  his  race,  as  the  latter  part  of  the  vision,  or  that 
which  was  presented  to  him  on  a part  of  one  of 
his  days — although  the  night-vision  might,  in  some 
instances,  represent  a period  of  longer  real  duration 
than  the  day-vision. 

The  second  ertv^  or  ‘evening,’  would  not  be  a 
representation  of  complete  darkness,  like  the  erev 
of  the  first  vision;  for  the  ‘cosmical  light’  would 


FROM  WHICH  PLANETS  WERE  FORMED.  1 39 


not  grow  dimmer,  as  the  condensation  of  the 
‘ revolving  fire-mist  ’ proceeded.  But  it  would  be 
a vision  of  conflict  and  rapid  change — or  what  to 
Adam  would  seem  like  disorder,  and  would,  there- 
fore, be  a period  of  partial  darkness.  The  nebular 
theory  presents  us  with  what  we  cannot  hastily 
reject,  as  the  likeliest  picture  of  this  second  erev^ 
in  Adam’s  vision  : separation  of  a succession  of 
rings  from  the  revolving  and  condensing  mass  of 
matter — their  breaking  up — and  then  the  re-union 
of  parts  of  them  to  form  planets,  and  of  other 
parts  to  form  rings  round  the  planets,  and  which 
would  eventually  become  moons.  When  the  rings 
from  which  Neptune,  and  Uranus,  and  Saturn,  and 
Jupiter,  and  the  planet  which  may  have  been 
severed  into  Asteroids,  and  Mars,  had  been 
separated — the  ring  from  which  our  earth  was  to 
be  formed  would,  next,  become  separate. 

When  the  ring  had  broken  up,  and  parts  of  it 
had  been  united,  an  intensely  heated  mass— -as  the 
great  Leibnitz  said,  in  Newton’s  time,  and  our 
Phillips  and  modern  geologists  adopt  his  idea — 
would  form  the  primal  nucleus  of  our  Earth.  And 
as  its  unbroken  spherical  surface  cooled,  the  vapour 


140 


NECESSITY  THAT  THE  RECORD 


around  it  would  cover  it  with  water — so  that  it 
would  have  the  appearance  of  a watery  ball.  This 
is  also  the  conclusion  of  modern  geologists ; and 
this  would  be  the  appearance  of  our  Earth  at  the 
close  of  the  first  half — the  erev — of  Adam’s  second 
vision. 

You  may  exclaim,  “ But  the  Bible  says  nothing 
about  all  this  ! ” True.  It  only  says  there  was 
an  erev ; and  the  ‘ evening  ^ must  have  presented 
something  to  Adam’s  sight.  The  impression  made 
on  his  mind,  in  each  vision,  would  be  most  vivid 
and  durable,  where  he  has  to  give  the  picture  of 
what  he  beholds  to  his  descendants.  His  com- 
munication to  them  cannot  consist  of  too  many 
details  : that  would  destroy  the  very  purpose  of 
the  record  Adam  has  to  furnish  : it  would  cause  it 
to  be  neglected  and  forgotten. 

The  record  will  have  to  be  often  repeated,  and 
kept  before  the  eyes,  and  in  the  living  memory, 
of  the  Sacred  Family,  to  preserve  them  from  the 
sun  and  moon  and  star  worship,  and  the  animal 
worship,  which  grew  up  so  early  among  the  deserters 
from  that  family.  It  must,  therefore,  be  a digest  of 
what  Adam  saw,  and  not  a full  account,  involving 


SHOULD  BE  FITTED  FOR  REHEARSAL.  T4I 

a multitude  of  details  difficult  to  keep  in  mind. 
So  it  told  the  Sacred  Family,  not  that  matter  and 
its  forces  were  eternal,  but  that  God  created 
matter — gave  existence  to  it — and  then  instituted 
its  forces.  Adam’s  descendants  were  not  to  wor- 
ship matter,  or  any  of  its  forces  or  its  forms : the 
Creator  of  all  was  to  be  the  sole  object  of  their 
worship. 

The  ‘ morning  ^ of  Adam’s  second  vision  is  thus 
related  in  our  translation  : “ And  God  said,  Let 
there  be  a firmament  in  the  midst  of  the  waters, 
and  let  it  divide  the  waters  from  the  waters.  And 
God  made  the  firmament,  and  divided  the  waters 
which  were  under  the  firmament  from  the  waters 
which  were  above  the  firmament.  And  it  was 
so.'’ 

The  new  translation,  which  is  now  being  made 
by  a company  of  learned  men,  will  abolish  the 
word  firmament^  for  such  a word — which  has  been 
the  cause  of  so  much  adverse  criticism — should 
never  have  been  used  in  this  verse.  The  Hebrew 
word  raqia  means  * expanse,’  or  something  spread 
out. 

“ How  came  the  wrong  translation  to  be  made  ?” 


T42 


CAUSE  OF  MISTRANSLATION. 


you  will  ask;  and  I have  to  reply  that  it  was 
caused  by  men’s  ignorance  of  true  science.  St. 
Jerome, — the  author  of  the  Latin  translation, 
called  the  Vulgate,  which  is  used  by  the  Romish 
Church, — had  the  Septuagint  before  him,  as  well 
as  the  Hebrew  text,  and  coined  the  word  crrcpew/xa 
into firmarnentum — both  words  signifying  something 
solid  or  firm;  and  our  translators,  three  hundred 
years  ago,  cut  off  the  um  at  the  end,  and  gave  us 
firmament.  For  the  authors  of  the  Greek  and  Latin 
franslations,  as  well  as  our  good  old  forefathers, 
were  all  believers  in  the  blundering  system  of 
ancient  astronomy  which  made  our  poor  little 
Earth  the  centre  of  the  whole  universe,  and  placed 
a solid  dome,  or  firmament^  over  us,  beyond  the 
orbits  of  the  planets. 

Our  business  is  not  with  the  correction  of  the 
blunder,  in  the  translation  now  being  formed.  We 
hope  we  can  leave  that  safely  to  the  men  who  have 
undertaken  to  give  us — so  far  as  they  can  agree— 
the  most  correct  English  version  possible  of  the 
revealed  Word  of  God.  Yet  we  must  correct  the 
blunder  for  ourselves.  We  must  remember  that 
there  is  no  account  of  a firmament  really  in  :he 


CREATION  OF  THE  ATMOSPHERE. 


143 


Bible.  Carry  the  word  ‘ expanse  ’ in  your  mind, 
as  you  read,  and  you  will  always  find  it  agree  wiih 
descriptions  of  the  heavens,  in  the  Bible. 

What  was  it,  then,  that  God  made,  and  which 
was  first  beheld  by  Adam,  during  the  ‘morning’  ol 
his  second  vision  ? The  Atmosphere  : “ the  blue 
ethereal  sky,”  as  we  have  it  in  Addison’s  fine 
hymn ; and  it  divided  the  waters  which  covered 
this  earthly  ball,  from  the  vapours  which  still  sur- 
rounded it,  and  which,  by  a further  transformation, 
might  contribute  to  form  a satellite. 

We  are  told  that  God  called  the  expanse 
Heaven^ — that  is  to  say.  He  taught  man  so  to  call 
it.  In  order  to  remind  man,  when  he  looks  upward, 
that  this  Earth  is  not  the  sole  corner  of  existence ; 
that  when  he  thus  gazes  into  the  clear  regions  of 
space,  he  may  remember  that  in  those  regions  are 
the  abodes  of  higher  existences,  to  whom  he  is  to  re- 
gard himself  as  related,  and  whose  happy  company 
he  may  join,  when  his  pilgrimage  here  is  ended. 

Wa-yehi  erev,  wa-yehi  voqer,  yd??i  sheni- — “And 
was  evening  and  was  morning  day  second  ” is  the 
formula  with  which  the  account  of  the  second  day’s 
creation  ends. 


144 


INDEFINITE  LENGTH  OF  ' DAYS.' 


The  vision  of  Adam  occupied  him,  as  before, 
only  for  an  evening  and  a morning  of  his  own  day ; 
our  ‘natural  day,’  as  we  call  it.  But  how  long 
w^as  the  real  period  of  the  second  day’s  work  of 
the  Creator,  as  represented  to  the  first  man,  none 
of  us  can  possibly  know.  It  may  have  been  thou- 
sands, or  even  millions,  of  years ; but  no  man, 
however  skilful  in  science,  has  any  right  to  affirm, 
or  to  pretend,  that  he  can  make  a probable  reckon- 
ing of  its  exact  duration. 


THE  THEORY  OF  PHILLIPS. 


145 


V. 


RECORD  OF  creation:  THE  THIRD  DAY. 

' I "HE  creation-work  of  the  third  day,  alluded 
^ to  in  the  9th,  loth,  nth,  12th,  and  13th 
verses  of  our  translation  of  the  first  chapter  in  the 
Bible,  seems  to  be  divided  into  two  parts : the 
work  of  the  erev,  or  ‘ evening,’  and  the  work  of 
the  voqer^  or  ‘ morning.* 

Taking  up  the  theory  of  Phillips,  accepted  by 
the  geologists  of  the  present  time,  at  ^he  point 
where  we  left  it, — that  the  hot  nucleus  of  the 
earth  had  been  formed,  and  then,  its  unoroken 
spherical  surface  cooled,  and  entirely  covered 
with  water, — we  proceed  to  the  remainder  of 
Phillips’  theory.  The  nucleus,  in  the  process  of 
solidification,  would  shrink ; and  the  shrinkage 
would  cause  rents  in  its  surface.  Into  these 
fissures  the  surrounding  water  would  enter  \ and  a 


146 


THIRD  DAY^S  CREATION: 


great  force  of  steam  being  thus  generated,  the 
first  great  breaking  up  of  the  earth’s  crust  would 
occur,  and  the  early  Palaeozoic  rocks  and  seas 
would  be  formed.  The  work  of  the  erev  would 
thus  again  seem,  in  Adam’s  vision,  a period  of 
conflict,  change,  and  disorder;  and  such  change 
would  cause  an  obscuration  of  the  cosmic  light, 
and  thus  the  erev  would,  again,  be  a period  of 
partial  darkness. 

The  work  of  the  erev  is  thus  described  in  our 
translation  : And  God  said.  Let  the  waters  be 
gathered  together  from  under  the  heavens  unto 
one  place,  and  let  the  dry  land  appear : and  it  was 
so.  And  God  called  the  dry  land  earth,  and  the 
gathering  together  of  the  waters  called  He  seas : 
and  God  saw  that  it  was  good.”  The  dry  land 
appeared:  the  Earth  was  no  longer  a seeming 
watery  ball : it  was  now  land  and  water ; and 
God  saw  that  it  was  good  : ” it  was  fitted  for 
the  support  of  the  varied  forms  of  life  with  which 
His  wisdom  and  beneficence  purposed  to  store 
it,  successively,  in  the  future. 

I do  not  see  why  the  creation  and  growth  of 
algae  and  zoophytes — the  creation  and  multiplica- 


THE  PALEOZOIC  PERIOD. 


147 


tion  of  trilobites,  and  then  of  ganoid  fishes,  and 
the  gradual  transformation  of  ocean  beds  into 
rocks — should  not  be  understood  as  going  on 
during  the  third  erev.  I know  that  many  have 
a strong  objection  to  grant  this,  and  to  say  that 
none  of  this  is  recorded  in  the  Bible,  although 
geology  shows  us  that  animal  life  abounded  before 
terrestrial  plants  grew.  And  in  order  to  meet 
this  objection  the  leading  American  geologists  are 
contending  that  it  is  most  probable  terrestrial 
plants  did  exist  before  the  beginning  of  animal 
life — for  the  Laurentian  rocks,  which  they  are  now 
calling  ^ Eozoic,’  are  com.posed  very  largely  of 
graphite^  a mineral  which  is  chiefly  carbon,  and 
that  may  have  been  supplied  by  the  grinding  up 
of  an  immense  growth  of  primeval  vegetation. 

The  American  geologists  would  thus  allot  the 
formation  of  the  Laurentian  rocks  only,  to  the 
third  day’s  creation.  I humbly  prefer  to  hold, 
with  Hugh  Miller,  that  the  whole  range  of 
Palaeozoic  rocks  were  formed  during  the  third 
erev — were  formed  from  upraised  ocean -beds  on 
which  had  rested  the  waters  wherein  lived,  not 
only  such  Rhizopods  as  the  Eozoon  Canadense, 


THIRD  morning’s  VISION. 


148 

but  the  immense  crowds  of  Articulata  and  Mol- 
lusca  which  the  Stone  Book  shows  us  existed  in 
that  ancient  period, — together  with  the  swarming 
Trilobites  and  multitudinous  Ganoid  and  Placoid 
fishes. 

They  are  not  mentioned  in  the  sacred  record 
for  the  reason  I have  already  given,  in  answer  to 
the  like  objection  : it  would  have  destroyed  the 
purpose  of  the  record,  if  it  had  been  crowded 
with  limitless  details : Adam’s  descendants  could 
•.lot  have  familiarised  their  memories  with  it,  so  as 
to  preserve  in  their  minds  a dread  of  false  and 
idolatrous  worship,  and  a fear  of  departing  from 
the  Living  God. 

The  work  of  the  third  voqer^  or  ‘morning,’  is 
described  in  the  words  that  follow  the  passage 
already  quoted:  “And  God  said.  Let  the  earth 
bring  forth  grass ^ the  herb  yielding  seed,  and  the 
fruit  tree  yielding  fruit,  after  his  kind,  which  hath 
its  seed  in  itself,  upon  the  earth  : and  it  was  so. 
And  the  earth  brought  forth  grass,  the  herb  yield- 
ing seed,  after  his  kind,  and  the  tree  yielding  fruit, 
which  hath  its  seed  in  itself,  after  his  kind.  And 
God  saw  that  it  was  good.” 


GROWTH  OF  THE  COAL  PLANTS. 


149 


The  Hebrew  word  deshe  is  not  properly  trans- 
lated grass.  It  means  vegetation,  or  herbage. 
The  whole  passage  evidently  points — as  noble 
Hugh  Miller  has  so  eloquently  shown — to  the 
gigantic  horsetails,  ferns,  club -mosses,  and  conifers 
thrown  up  by  the  hot  and  steaming  earth,  in  the 
Carboniferous  period.  I see  nothing  valid  in  the 
objection  that  the  conifers  are  not  fruit  trees.  Not 
according  to  strict  botanical  nomenclature,  I 
grant ; but  the  cones  and  berries  of  the  pines, 
araucarias,  yews,  and  junipers  may  be  termed  fruit 
without  any  monstrous  violation  of  language.  The 
Stone  Book,  on  its  carboniferous  pages,  contains 
the  natural  record  which  has  its  inspired  parallel  in 
the  eleventh  and  twelfth  verses  of  this  chapter  : the 
record  of  the  creation-work  of  the  third  ‘ morning.’ 

Do  not  let  me  omit  to  call  your  attention  to  the 
peculiar  expression  “ after  his  kind,”  which  follows 
the  mention  both  of  the  “ herb  yielding  seed,”  and 
of  the  ‘‘  tree  yielding  fruit.”  God  created  each 
‘‘  after  his  kind.”  He  did  not  create  a single 
primordial  plant,  and  let  ‘ natural  selection  ’ form 
the  other  plants  out  of  it,  according  to  Mr. 
Darwin’s  notion,  in  the  ‘ Origin  of  Species.’  God 


150 


god’s  wise  provision 


created  each  ‘‘after  his  kind:”  the  various  kinds, 
or  species,  of  plants  were  His  creation : they  did 
not  come  into  existence  by  ‘ natural  selection.’ 

Wa  yehi  Erev^  wa  yehi  Voqer,  ydm  shelishi^ — 
“ And  was  evening,  and  was  morning,  day  third,” 
ends  the  record  of  the  third  day’s  vision.  The 
formula  is  repeated,  and  we  see  formula  in  other 
parts  of  the  record  : a very  evident  sign  that  it  was 
intended  to  be  committed  to  memory,  and  often 
rehearsed. 

Geologists  hold  that  the  atmosphere,  when  it 
Vvas  first  formed,  contained  carbonic  acid  as  a 
much  larger  component  than  it  does  now.  The 
Maker  so  furnished  it,  that  the  gigantic  plants  of 
the  coal  measures  might  have  their  nutriment. 
His  beneficence  was  thus  storing  up  the  supply  of 
fuel  for  His  crowning  creature,  Man,  in  the  future; 
while,  by  the  abstraction  of  the  carbonic  acid 
surplus.  He  was  preparing  the  atmosphere  for  the 
breathing  of  animals  which  were  next  to  appear  on 
the  earth  and  in  the  waters. 

The  sacred  narrative,  at  the  next  step,  will  leave 
the  Earth ; but  we  may  hold  that,  while  it  treats  of 
the  formation  of  other  bodies,  on  the  fourth  day. 


IN  THE  FIRST  ATMOSPHERE.  151 

the  growth  upon  growth  of  the  coal-seams  may  be 
considered  as  going  on,  also  on  the  fourth  day — 
and  thus  a long  period  be  occupied  with  the  car- 
boniferous strata,  as  geologists  contend. 

The  ‘ evening  ’ and  the  ‘ morning  ^ of  the  third 
day’s  creation-work  may  each  have  extended 
through  many  thousands  of  years’  duration.  But 
I repeat,  no  man,  however  high  his  scientific 
reputation,  has  any  right  to  attach  any  definite  time 
to  either  period. 


IS2 


FOURTH  day’s  CREATIONf 


VI. 


RECORD  OF  CREATION  : THE  FOURTH  DAY. 


RECEDING  the  ‘morning'  of  the  fourth 


^ day's  vision  of  Adam,  there  would  be  an 
ereVy  or  ‘ evening ' ; and  it  would  be,  like  the 
evenings  before  it,  a period  of  conflict,  change, 
and  seeming  discord,  and  therefore  of  partial 
darkness,  notwithstanding  the  increasing  light  of 
the  great  condensing  or  gravitating  mass  of  cosmic 
matter. 

Pursuing  the  teaching  of  the  nebular  or  cosmical 
theory  of  Laplace,  we  depicture  to  ourselves  what 
would  form  the  first  half  of  our  great  progenitor’s 
fourth  vision  : separation  of  the  rings  which  are 
to  form  the  planets  Venus  and  Mercury;  and  then 
the  breaking  up  of  these  rings,  and  formation  of 
the  two  planets.  The  cosmic  vapour  around  the 
<5arth  and  its  ‘ expanse  ’ would  also  have  formed  a 


FORMATION  OF  THE  SUN. 


153 


ring,  and  have  broken  up  and  formed  our  moon. 
Its  heat  would  be  comparatively  little ; and  when 
its  body  had  cooled,  it  would  become  what  it  is 
held  to  be  now — a mere  burnt-out  cinder,  and  in 
itself  dark. 

But  the  most  appalling  conflict  of  matter  and 
its  forces  Adam  would  behold  on  that  fourth  erev^ 
would  be  the  final  condensation  and  pressure  of  so 
great  a mass  of  cosmic  matter  to  form  the  Sun — a 
mass  which  is  more  than  a million  times  larger  than 
our  Earth.  I have  said  finals  but  the  word  must  be 
corrected.  According  to  the  enlightened  teaching 
of  Helmholtz,  the  condensation  is  never  com.plete  : 
the  pressure  continues,  and  it  is  the  chief  source 
of  the  Sun’s  continued  heat.  The  contraction  of 
the  Sun  only  a ten-thousandth  part  of  the  length 
of  his  diameter,  Helmholtz  calculates,  would  gene- 
rate heat  to  last  through  two  thousand  years  of 
radiation. 

Sir  William  Thomson,  and  Mayer,  and  Norman 
Lockyer,  and  others,  conjecture  that  meteoric 
bodies  are  also  almost  incessantly  falling  into  the 
Sun,  and  thus  contributing  to  feed  his  fire, — that 
fire  of  which  we  receive  but  a small  proportion, 

II 


154 


SOLAR  SYSTEM  COMPLETE. 


and  yet  it  keeps  up  the  life  of  nature  through  the 
almighty  and  infinite  energy  of  Him  who  is  the 
source  and  sustentation  of  all  life.  Read  Mr. 
Proctor’s  grand  volume  on  the  Sun ; and  if  it  does 
not  fill  your  minds  with  reverential  awe  for  the 
Divine  Creator,  I know  not  what  will. 

When  the  conflict  had  been  withdrawn  from 
Adam’s  vision,  he  would  be  shown  the  moon, 
the  earth,  and  the  planets,  lit  up  by  the  splendour 
of  the  sun.  And  the  fourth  morning  would  show 
him  the  great  ofifices  the  Sun  sustains  in  Nature. 

Allow  me  to  give  you  a more  literal  translation 
than  that  of  our  present  authorised  version,  of 
verses  fourteen  to  nineteen,  inclusive,  of  this  first 
chapter,  in  order  more  clearly  to  show  how  accord- 
ant the  sacred  narrative  is  with  the  real  teachings 
of  science : — 

‘‘And  said  Elohim,  Let  there  be  light-givers  in 
expanse  of  the  heavens,  to  divide  between  the 
day  and  between  the  night ; and  let  them  be  for 
signs,  and  for  seasons,  and  for  days,  and  years. 
And  let  them  be  for  light -givers  in  expanse  of  the 
heavens  to  give  light  upon  the  earth  ; and  it  was 
so.  And  made  created, — ‘ made  ’ or  ‘ formed  *) 


TWO  GREAT  ‘LIGHT-GIVERS.’ 


I5S 


Elohim  two  the  light-givers  : the  light-giver  the 
great  for  ruling  the  day,  and  the  light-giver  the 
lesser  for  ruling  the  night : the  stars  also.  And  set 
them  Elohim  in  expanse  of  the  heavens,  to  give 
light  upon  the  earth,  and  to  rule  over  the  day,  and 
over  the  night,  and  to  divide  between  the  light  and 
between  the  darkness  : and  saw  Elohim  that  it  was 
good.”  And  then  follows  the  formula — Wa  yehi 
Erev^  wayehi  Voqer,  ydm  revil — “ And  was  evening, 
and  was  morning,  day  fourth.” 

You  will  have  marked  the  fitness  of  the  term 
‘ light-givers.’  It  is  such  a literal  translation  of  the 
Hebrew  meoroth^  that  it  is  a wonder  our  old  trans- 
lators missed  it.  You  will  have  observed,  too,  how 
accidentally — shall  I say  ? — “ the  stars  also  ” seem 
dropped  into  the  narrative,  as  if  it  were  meant  to 
teach  that  they  were  all  made  by  God,  but  not  all 
on  the  fourth  day  of  creation.  Some  learned  men 
think  that  the  planets  only  are  pointed  out  in  the 
words  ha-kokkavim^  rendered  ‘ the  stars.’  For  the 
vision  of  the  fourth  day  is,  evidently,  a revelation 
to  Adam  of  the  completion  of  the  solar  system. 
The  record,  at  the  next  step,  returns  to  our 
Earth. 


FIFTH  evening’s  VISION. 


VIL 


RECORD  OF  CREATION  : THE  FIFTH  DAY. 

S before,  there  would  be  an  erev^  or  ‘ evening,* 


^ to  commence  our  first  parent’s  vision  of  the 
fifth  day’s  creation-work.  That  unconformity  on 
which  geologists  insist,  between  the  rocks  of  the 
Primary  and  Secondary  formations — the  ‘ faults  * 
and  distortions  of  the  Carboniferous  strata,  and  the 
strange  dolomite  forms  of  the  Permian,  indicate 
the  conflict  and  change  and  seeming  disorder,  and 
therefore  partial  darkness,  of  the  first  half  of 
Adam’s  fifth  vision  : the  passage  from  the  Palaeo- 
zoic to  the  Mesozoic  formation. 

Of  the  voqer,  or  ‘morning,’  that  followed,  the 
chief  feature  of  creation-work  on  the  fifth  day  is 
recorded  in  verses  twenty-one  and  twenty-two  of 
this  first  chapter  of  Genesis.  There  are  no  details 
of  the  growth  of  gigantic  cycads  and  conifers,  or 


THE  MESOZOIC  PERIOD. 


^57 


of  the  multitudinous  existence  of  ammonites  and 
other  molluscs,  in  the  Mesozoic.  The  record  is 
not  crowded  with  countless  particularities  which 
would  have  rendered  it  difficult  to  remember,  and 
therefore  unfit  for  frequent  rehearsal.  It  points 
emphatically  to  the  reptile  life — the  great  dominant 
life  of  the  Mesozoic  formation,  which  has  often 
been  termed  ‘ the  reign  of  reptiles.^ 

Poor  Hugh  Miller  was  assailed  as  misrepresent- 
ing the  Geology  of  the  Mesozoic,  in  order  to  fit 
it  for  proving  the  truth  of  this  fifth  day’s  record. 
But  he  never  denied  that  some  petrifactions  of 
small  reptile  life — beginnings  of  it — had  been  found 
in  the  Palaeozoic.  He  simply  maintained,  what 
nobody  can  deny,  that  the  Stone  Book  proves 
reptile  life  to  have  been  the  dominant  life  of  the 
Mesozoic,  and  that  only  in  that  formation  was  it 
abundant. 

Our  old  translators  have  again  followed  the 
Septuagint,  which  gives  us  ktJtoi,  ‘ whales,’  instead 
of  translating  the  Hebrew  taninim  ‘ reptiles,’  as  it 
ought  to  be  translated.  They  seem  to  have  been 
really  puzzled  with  the  translation  of  this  word, 
for  they  have  rendered  it  ‘ dragons,’  again  and 


158  THE  REIGN  OF  REPTILES. 

again, — applying  it,  sometimes,  to  the  ‘ dragon  ’ 
of  the  Nile,  the  crocodile, — a plain  proof  that  they 
must  have  doubted  the  correctness  of  the  Sep- 
tuagint  version  ‘whales,’  although  they  had  fol- 
lowed it.  Doubtless,  by  ha-taninhn  ha-gedolim^ 
‘the  reptiles  the  great,'  the  huge  saurians  of  the 
Mesozoic  are  pointed  out  with  the  clearness  of  a 
sunbeam.  Oph  kanaph^  or  ‘fowl  of  wing,'  may 
include  the  Pterodactyls,  as  well  as  \md^%^toothed 
birds  with  feathers,  of  which  petrifactions  have 
been  found  in  the  Mesozoic. 

The  prevalent  life  of  colossal  destructive  crea- 
tures, such  as  the  Ichthyosaurus,  Plesiosaurus,  and 
the  other  great  fish-lizards,  is  a part  of  the  greatest 
of  all  problems — the  mystery  of  evil — which  none 
of  us  will  ever  be  able  to  solve,  in  this  life.  This 
record  assures  us  that  “God  saw  that  it  was  good." 

The  formula  Wa-yehi  Erev^  wa-yehi  Voger^yom 
chamishi — “And  was  evening,  and  was  morning, 
day  fifth,"  concludes  the  narrative  of  the  fifth  vision 
of  the  first  man. 


THE  GREAT  UNCONFORMITY. 


159 


vm. 

RECORD  OF  CREATION  : THE  SIXTH  DAY. 

“ T T is  almost  unnecessary  to  say,’^  says  Prin- 
^ cipal  Dawson,  in  his  valuable  new  book, 
‘ The  Origin  of  the  World,  according  to  Revelation 
and  Science’ — ‘^this  period  corresponds  with  the 
Tertiary  or  Kainozoic  era  of  geologists.”  So,  the 
great  Canadian  man  of  science  does  not,  in  this 
instance,  dissent  from  the  judgment  of  Hugh 
Miller. 

‘‘  Perhaps  no  geological  change  is  more  striking 
and  remarkable,”  continues  Dr.  Dawson,  ‘‘than 
the  sudden  disappearance  of  the  reptilian  fauna  at 
the  close  of  the  Mesozoic,  and  the  equally  abrupt 
appearance  of  numerous  species  of  large  mammals, 
and  this  not  in  one  region  only,  but  over  both  the 
great  continents,  and  not  only  where  a sudden 
b^eak  occurs  in  the  series  of  formations,  but  also 


l6o  THE  GREAT  MAMMALIANS 

where,  as  in  Western  America,  they  pass  gradually 
into  each  other.*^ 

That  unconformity^  which  all  geologists  thus 
affirm  to  be  so  strongly  characteristic  of  the  pas- 
sage from  the  Secondary  to  the  Tertiary  forma- 
tion, would  present  to  Adam  a resemblance  of  the 
seeming  disorder  which  marked  the  passage  of  the 
Primary  to  the  Secondary  ; like  it,  it  would  partially 
obscure  the  new  light  of  the  Sun  ; — and  would 
occupy  the  erev^  or  ‘ evening,’  of  Adam’s  sixth 
vision. 

The  w^cr,  or  ‘morning’  of  the  sixth  day’s 
creation-work,  is  revealed  in  the  twenty-fourth 
to  the  thirty-first  verses,  inclusive,  of  this  chapter ; 
and  is  also  revealed  in  the  Kainozoic  pages  of  the 
Stone  Book — save  that  no  human  petrifactions 
have  been  found  in  it. 

A few  Marsupials — the  lowest  form  of  mammals 
■ — lived  during  the  Mesozoic,  but  none  of  the 
higher  forms.  In  the  Kainozoic,  as  depictured  in 
Genesis,  Behemah^  or  ‘cattle,’  are  mentioned  first: 
the  word  is  chief!  employed  in  the  Bible  to  denote 
what  are  called  herbivorous  animals  ; and  they  are 
creatures  whose  petrifactions  are  most  abundant  in 


OF  THE  KAINOZOIC  PERIOD.  l6l 

this  formation  : gigantic  pachyderms,  allied  to  the 
Tapir,  the  Hippopotamus,  the  Rhinoceros,  and 
the  Elephant.  Nor  are  other  forms  of  the  thick- 
skinned  animals  wanting : the  modern  Horse,  and 
Swine,  have  their  representatives,  or  allied  forms, 
also  in  the  Kainozoic. 

The  word  which  is  translated  ‘ creeping  thing  ^ 
may  have  reference  to  the  Serpent  forms  whose 
petrifactions  are  found  in  the  Kainozoic,  and  also 
to  the  abundance  of  Turtles.  ‘‘  More  species  of 
true  turtles,’’  says  Owen,  in  his  ‘ Palaeontology,’ 
have  left  their  remains  in  the  London  Clay,  at 
the  mouth  of  the  Thames,  than  are  now  known  tc 
exist  in  the  whole  world;  and  all  Eocene  chelones 
(turMes)  are  extmct.” 

The  other  term — * beast  of  the  earth,’  as  it  is 
here  rendered,  is  held  to  describe  carnivorous 
creatures ; and  the  Lion,  Leopard,  Bear,  Hyaena, 
Wolf,  Dog,  Fox,  Otter,  and  other  flesh-eating 
creatures — but  all  of  different  species  as  com- 
pared with  ours — have  all  their  allied  forms  in  the 
Kainozoic. 

‘‘After  his  kind,”  and  “ after  their  kind,”  are  the 
declarations  used,  you  will  observe,  to  describe  God’s 


i62 


MAN  FORMED  IN  GOD  S IMAGE.* 


formation  of  the  animals,  in  the  visions  both  of  the 
fifth  and  sixth  days.  The  Bible  is  utterly  opposed 
to  Dr.  Darwin’s  doctrine  of  ‘ Natural  Selection,* 
in  its  account  of  the  introduction  of  animal  life,  as 
well  as  of  vegetable  life,  on  the  earth  : it  asserts  that 
God  made  the  species  of  animals,  and  also  the  species 
of  plants  : that  neither  came  by ‘Natural  Selection.’ 

The  clear,  emphatic  manner  in  which  Man’s 
existence  is  introduced  as  beginning  at  the  close 
of  the  sixth  day,  by  an  especial  act  of  God,  must 
for  ever  separate  believers  in  the  Bible  from  the 
disciples  of  Evolution.  Twice  it  is  declared  that 
God  “ made  Man  in  His  own  image  : in  the  imasfe 
of  God  created  He  him.”  This  cannot  mean,  nor 
can  it  be  made  to  mean,  that  Man  was  formed  out 
of  some  creature,  which  was  formed  out  of  one  of 
the  Anthropoid  Apes,  by  ‘ Natural  Selection.*  It 
is  little  that  is  said,  in  this  most  ancient  of  all  re- 
cords, but  the  little  that  is  said  about  Man,  and 
God’s  purpose  in  creating  him,  shows  that  God 
Himself  designed  Man  to  be  the  crown  of  His 
earthly  creation — for  God  gives  Man  dominion 
over  it  in  terms  which  leave  it  impossible  for  us  to 
doubt  His  great  purpose. 


VEGETABLE  FOOD  OF  PARADISE.  1 63 


Man’s  food,  and  likewise  the  food  of  the  crea- 
tures who  are  with  him,  is  appointed  to  be  vegetable 
food,  in  this  chapter, — for  there  would  be  no  rave- 
nous beasts  or  birds  with  him  in  Eden,  nor  would 
he  destroy  life,  while  he  lived  in  innocence. 

Wa-yehi  erev ; wa-yehi  voqer^  yam  ha-shishl — • 
‘‘  And  was  evening,  and  was  morning,  day 
sixth,”  is,  finally^  the  formula  closing  the  day’s 
vision.  Man  having  been  created  towards  the 
close  of  the  sixth  day,  be  it  observed,  could  have 
had  no  seventh  day,  when  God’s  seventh  day 
began — had  God’s  creation- days  been  exactly  of 
the  length  of  man’s  days — days  of  twenty-four 
hours  each.  The  seventh  day  of  creation  must, 
then,  have  been  Man’s  first  day. 


164 


HUGH  MILLER'S  REASONING 


IX, 


THE  SEVENTH  DAY : THE  REST  OF  GOD,  AND  THE 


REST  OF  MAN. 


NE  of  the  strongest  objections  urged  against 


an  interpretation  of  the  creative  ‘ days  ’ into 
periods  is  contained  in  the  question,  so  often 
urged,  “ How  can  we  keep  the  Sabbath  as  God 
kept  it,  unless  the  days  of  creation  were  natural 
days — days  of  the  same  length  as  our  own?  The 
answer  is,  ‘‘  Prove  to  us  that  the  seventh  day, 
mentioned  in  the  second  and  third  verses  of  the 
second  chapter  of  Genesis,  was  a natural  day — 
a day  of  twenty-four  hours.  The  Divine  record 
does  not  say  that  God’s  seventh  day  ended.  It 
leaves  us,  rather,  to  contemplate  the  reason  why 
His  seventh  day  has  not  yet  ended.’^ 

‘‘I  know  not,’^  reasons  noble  Hugh  Miller, 
where  we  shall  find  grounds  for  the  oelief  that 


CONCERNING  THE  SABBATH-DAY.  165 

the  Sabbath  day  during  which  God  rested  was 
merely  commensurate  with  one  of  the  Sabbaths 
of  short-lived  man, — a brief  period  measured  by  a 
single  revolution  of  the  earth  on  its  axis.  We 
have  not,  as  has  been  shown,  a shadow  of  evi- 
dence that  He  resumed  His  work  of  creation  on 
the  morrow  : the  geologist  finds  no  trace  of  post- 
Adamic  creation : the  theologian  can  tell  us  of 
none.  God’s  Sabbath  of  rest  may  still  exist,  the 
work  of  redemption  may  be  the  work  of  His 
Sabbath-day.  That  elevatory  process  through  suc- 
cessive acts  of  creation,  which  engaged  him  during 
myriads  of  ages,  was  of  an  ordinary  week-day 
character ; but  when  the  term  of  His  moral 
government  began,  the  elevatory  process  peculiar 
to  it  assumed  the  divine  character  of  the  Sabbath. 
This  special  view  appears  to  lend  peculiar  emphasis 
to  the  reason  embodied  in  the  commandment. 
The  collation  of  the  passage  with  the  geologic 
record  seems,  as  if  by  a species  of  re-translation, 
to  make  it  enunciate  as  its  injunction,  ‘‘  Keep  this 
day,  not  merely  as  a day  of  memorial  related  to  a 
past  fact,  but  also  as  a day  of  co-operation  with 
God  in  the  work  of  elevation,  in  relation  both  to  a 


i66 


NO  REASON  WHY  GOD’s  DAYS 


present  fact  and  a future  purpose.”  God  keeps 
His  Sabbath,”  it  says,  in  order  that  He  may 
save  : keep  yours  also  that  ye  may  be  saved.” 

“But  could  not  God  have  made  all  that  you 
say  He  has  made  in  periods,  some  of  them  at 
least  of  great  length,  in  six  of  our  natural  days  ? ” 
Undoubtedly  He  could  have  done  it,  but  where  is 
the  proof  that  He  has  so  done  it  ? and  w^hat  pur- 
pose could  be  answered  by  His  having  so  done  it? 
We  see  the  evidence  of  gradual  progress  as  unmis- 
takably written  by  His  almighty  hand  on  the  leaves 
of  the  Stone  Book,  as  we  see  the  evidence  of  His 
all-wise  mind  in  the  design  and  contrivance  which 
marks  all  living  Nature.  “ The  invisible  things  of 
Him,  from  the  creation  of  the  world,  are  clearly 
seen,  being  understood  by  the  things  that  are 
made,”  we  reason  to  be  a strict  truth,  when  we 
mark  the  evidence  of  design  in  the  formation  of 
an  eye.  We  do  not  think  that  we  are  deceived 
when  we  so  reason.  Why  should  we  think  we 
are  deceived  when  we  mark  gradual  progress  in 
the  creation -work  ? What  purpose  could  be 
served  by  God’s  performance  in  a few  hours  of 
what  our  reason  shows  us  must  have  taken  long 


SHOULD  BE  AS  SHORT  AS  OURS.  167 

periods  of  years,  or  ages,  to  bring  into  existence  ? 
And  are  not  all  reasonings  about  the  length  of  the 
creation-days,  after  all,  trifling?  Is  not  all  time 
relative  ? What  seems  a short  time  to  us,  now, 
would  seem  a long  time  if  our  lives  were  never 
longer  than  twenty  years.  And  what  seems  a long 
time  to  us,  would  have  seemed  a short  time  to  one 
of  the  antediluvians  whose  life  fell  little  short  of 
a thousand  years  in  length.  God  has  eternity  to 
work  in.  Why  should  He  have  made  the  earth, 
and  its  countless  and  varied  inhabitants,  in  six 
days,  just  of  twenty -four  hours  each? 


i68 


THOUGHTS  ON  THE  AUTHORSHIP 


X. 


CONSIDERATION  OF  SOME  OBJECTIONS. 

^ HY  should  we  give  up  our  long-established 


belief  that  the  whole  book  of  Genesis 


is  an  inspired  revelation  to  Moses,  and  receive  a 
mere  theory  that  a part  of  it  consists  of  documents 
much  older  than  the  time  of  Moses  ? — and  why 
should  we  receive  it  as  a fact,  that  the  record  in 
the  first  of  Genesis  is  a record  of  Adam’s  visions  ? 
It  is  a mere  theory.” 

I reply,  my  friend,  that  your  belief  is  all  theory. 
The  name  of  Moses — or  any  allusion  to  him — is 
not  to  be  found  in  any  one  of  the  fifty  chapters  of 
Genesis.  You  have  no  authority  for  saying,  or 
believing,  that  the  book  of  Genesis  is  “a  reve- 
lation to  Moses.”  When  you  read,  ‘‘  And  God 
spake  unto  Moses,”  in  the  books  that  follow,  I 
hold  most  truly  that  you  and  I have  ‘‘a  revela- 


OF  THE  EARLY  PART  OF  GENESIS.  1 69 

tion  to  Moses ; but  there  are  no  such  words  in 
Genesis. 

I pray  you  to  mark  how  orderly,  how  full  of 
exact  sequence,  is  the  sacred  record,  when  it  is 
declared  to  be  ‘‘a  revelation  to  Moses.*'  Now, 
can  you  persuade  yourself  that  a legislator,  a leader 
— we  may  say,  of  unequalled  character — a man  of 
orderly  and  commanding  mind,  would  be  likely  to 
write  the  early  history  of  Man  in  the  way  that 
several  of  the  opening  chapters  of  Genesis  are 
written  ? Would  he  give  a short  general  account 
of  Creation — then  begin  his  work  again,  and  give 
us  the  history  in  another  form — then  give  us 
beginning  after  beginning  of  fragments  of  history  ? 
Do  the  opening  chapters  of  Genesis  look  like  the 
work  of  one  orderly  and  powerful  mind,  to  which  a 
special  and  Divine  revelation  has  been  made  ? 

And  why  should  any  one  think  we  are  taking 
something  valuable  from  him,  by  destroying  his  old 
persuasion  that  Genesis  is,  simply,  a revelation  to 
Moses?  Is  not  the  character  of  the  record  en- 
hanced unspeakably  in  value  by  the  belief  that  the 
opening  chapters  were  memorials  left  by  the  first 

and  earliest  of  our  race — had  been  most  sacredly 
12 


1 70  GREAT  USES  OF  ADAM’S  VISIONS. 

preserved — and  were  accounted  so  sacred  by  Moses 
that  he  accounted  it  his  strict  duty  to  place  them, 
unaltered,  at  the  head  of  the  longer  record  which 
he  intended  to  complete? 

I beg  to  say  one  word  in  defence  of  my  own 
theory,  in  reply  to  those  who  have  asked  me — 

Why  are  you  not  content  with  the  theory  of 
Kurtz  and  Hugh  Miller,  that  the  first  chapter  of 
Genesis  consists  of  a series  of  visions  beheld  by 
Moses  ? 

Because  it  leaves  us  in  the  very  difficulty  I have 
just  alluded  to : that  of  supposing  that  he  could 
write  in  a disjointed  and  unorderly  manner. 

But  my  great  objection  to  the  theory  that  the 
first  of  Genesis  is  either  a revelation  to  Moses,  or 
a series  of  the  visions  of  Moses,  is — that  it  abolishes 
the  precious  fact  of  the  great  salutary  and  sanctify- 
ing uses  which  the  record  of  Adam’s  visions  was 
to  serve  for  the  children  of  Adam  and  their  chil- 
dren’s children  : it  was  to  be  their  grand  preserva- 
tive against  idolatry. 


M.  *BOUCHER  DE  PERTHES. 


171 


XL 


THE  AGE  OF  MAN  : THE  BONE  CAVES  I THE 
SUPPOSED  ‘flint  implements.’ 

ET  US  leave  the  subject  which  has  occupied 


-1 — ^ us  so  long,  and  turn  to  another  and  more 
modern  chapter  of  controversy.  Many  geologists 
of  high  name  and  reputation  have  manifested  a 
most  eager  desire  to  have  it  believed  that  Man 
has  existed  a great  deal  longer  on  the  earth  than 
the  Bible  account  declares — even  when  the  dif- 
ferent numbers  of  the  Hebrew  text,  the  Samaritan 
Pentateuch,  and  the  Septuagint,  have  been  com- 
pared and  digested,  and  set  down  as  extending 
not  simply  to  7,000  years,  but  possibly  to  10,000 


years. 


Boucher  de  Perthes,  a French  gentleman  of 
Abbeville,  may  be  considered  as  giving  the  start 
to  the  very  wild  fancies  about  the  age  of  Man 


IJ2  THE  FLINTS  AND  HIS  FA^fclES. 

on  the  earth  which  have  become  so  common  with 
leading  geologists.  He  first  observed  in  1841 
what  he  regarded  as  a flint  hatchet  made  by 
human  hands,  among  some  Mammalian  petrifac- 
tions ; and  soon  after  found  other  chipped  or 
split  flints  which  he  also  believed  to  be  the  work 
of  early  men.  In  1846,  he  published  a book 
affirming  that  he  had  discovered  human  implements 
in  the  Drift ; and  in  the  next  year  he  put  forth 
another  book,  with  drawings  of  the  Flints.  Most 
people  looked  upon  him  as  a mere  enthusiast, 
and  did  not  hesitate  to  say  he  was  ‘ cracked.^ 
In  1859 — the  year  of  the  publication  of  Mr. 
Darwin’s  ‘ Origin  of  Species  ’ — Dr.  Falconer  went 
to  see  the  collection  of  what  M.  de  Perthes  called 
his  ‘human  implements;’  and  then  persuaded 
Evans  and  Prestwich  to  go  to  the  valley  of  the 
Somme,  and  give  the  matter  their  consideration. 
Although  they  were  by  no  means  very  enthusi- 
astic believers  in  M.  de  Perthes’  theory,  it  seems 
that  they  induced  Lyell,  Murchison,  Lubbock, 
and  others,  to  follow,  and  examine  the  beds  on 
the  Somme  where  these  ‘implements  ’ were  found. 
The  search  soon  began  in  England,  and  an  abun- 


ABUNDANCE  OF  THE  FLINTS. 


173 


dance  of  these  split  or  chipped  flints  were  found  in 
the  Isle  of  Ely,  and  all  over  the  Eastern  Coun- 
ties, in  Bedfordshire,  Hampshire,  and  the  Isle  of 
Wight,  and  in  Cornwall. 

Be  it  understood,  that,  in  all  these  cases,  the 
chipped  or  split  flints  were  always  rough  ; they  were 
never  polished.  That  the  polished  flints  exhibited 
in  our  museums  are  of  human  workmanship,  no 
man  thinks  of  doubting ; but — except  the  people 
who  deny  that  there  is  any  proof  of  contrivance 
in  an  eye  or  a limb — nobody  imagines  it  to  be  so 
very  palpably  and  pellucidly  clear  that  countless 
split  flints  found  in  the  ground,  or  on  the  ground, 
must  have  been  split  by  human  hands.  I must 
confess,  my  friends,  that  it  seems  to  me  to  be 
one  of  the  queerest  facts  ever  met  with,  that  our 
‘ grand  top-sawyers  ’ in  Science  should  insist,  so 
valorously,  that  Mind  has  been  employed  in 
making  what  they  insist  on  calling  ‘flint  imple- 
ments.’ and  yet  they  cannot  discern  that  Mind  is 
traceable  in  the  formation  of  the  human  hand,  or 
eye. 

Mr.  Whitley,  a surveyor,  living  in  the  neigh- 
bourhood of  Truro,  and  a practical  geologist,  has 


174 


SIR  JOHN  Lubbock’s  theory. 


been  protesting  against  this  craze  of  our  leading 
geologists,  for  the  last  dozen  years  or  more.  In 
1865,  he  issued  a pamphlet  exposing  the  false 
reasonings  and  conclusions  of  Sir  Charles  Lyell 
and  Professor  Ramsay,  and  others,  respecting  the 
‘Antiquity  of  Man,’  drawn  from  these  chipped  or 
split  flints.  In  1874,  he  was  at  a meeting  of  the 
Victoria  Institute  in  London,  and  in  the  presence 
of  several  scientific  men,  again  exposed  their  mis 
taken  conclusions  j and  last  year,  the  Victoria 
Institute  issued  ‘ A Critical  Examination  of  the 
Flints  from  Brixham  Cavern,  by  N.  Whitley,  C.E., 
in  which  the  same  author  has  shown  up  the  in- 
fatuation of  men  of  science  respecting  the  ‘ humaR 
implements  ’ said  to  have  been  found  in  tha) 
cavern  in  1858  and  1859. 

Sir  John  Lubbock  has  published  an  imposing, 
big  book,  to  establish  what  he  fondly  considers  to 
have  been  the  ‘Palaeolithic’  and  ‘Neolithic’ 
Ages,  as  well  as  the  Bronze  and  Iron  Ages  of 
Man.  But  the  American  geologists  are  already 
proclaiming  that  they  see  no  truth  in  Sir  John’s 
fanciful  distinctions  of  ‘ Palaeolithic ' (or  ancient 
flint)  and  ‘Neolithic’  (or  modern  flint)  Ages  of 


COUNTLESS  MILLIONS  OF  FLINTS. 


175 


Man.  That  ancient  men  used  sharpened  flints, 
nobody  doubts.  The  wife  of  Moses,  and  also 
Joshua,  used  ‘knives  of  flints’  for  the  rite  of 
circumcision.  And  we  cannot  wonder  at  this. 
The  split  flints  are  so  numerous  in  the  Arabian 
Desert,  that  a part  of  it  is  called  ‘ the  Desert  of 
Flints;’  and  the  most  intelligent  travellers  hold 
that  these  abundant  flints  are  split  by  the  change 
of  temperature.  In  those  countries,  it  is  often 
piercingly  cold,  when  you  awake  in  the  morning ; 
and  by  high  noon,  the  fierce  sun  peels  the  skin 
off  your  face. 

These  split  or  chipped  flints  have  not  only  been 
found  by  millions  in  our  own  country,  but  they 
are  found  in  France  and  almost  all  over  Europe, 
in  India,  in  Australia,  in  Terra  del  Fuego,  in 
Japan,  in  Palestine,  in  Algiers,  on  the  great 
Sahara,  on  the  Libyan  desert,  and  “ on  the  sterile 
terraces  and  slopes  which  border  the  Nile,  but 
not  on  its  alluvial  soil,”  says  Mr.  Whitley.  The 
common-sense  question  is.  Where  did  all  the 
men  come  from,  who,  according  to  Professor 
Ramsay,  and  Sir  Charles  Lyell,  and  Sir  John 
1 ul  bock,  must  have  lived  so  many  thousands  of 


176  FOOLISH  FANCIES  OF  GEOLOGISTS. 

years  ago,  and  fashioned  so  queerly  these  millions 
of  millions  of  flints  which  nobody  could  imagine 
were  fashioned  at  all,  by  man — except  somebody 
who  ‘ had  a soft  place  in  their  head,’  as  they  say 
in  Yorkshire?  The  high  scientific  people  call 
these  chipped  flints  and  gravels  ‘arrow-heads  and 
spear-heads  and  knives  ; ’ but  when  you  look  at 
many  of  them,  you  cannot  help  thinking  that  these 
same  high  scientific  people  must  have  very  strange 
notions  of  tools. 

One  of  the  most  conclusive  facts  that  have  been 
brought  to  bear  against  the  truth  of  this  wild  theory 
of  the  Flints,  is — that  when  they  are  put  into  a 
stone-breaker,  the  flints  come  out  of  the  very  forms 
and  shapes  which  our  geological  Solomons  call 
‘knives,  and  spearheads  and  arrow-heads.’  Mr. 
Whitley  has  shown  this.  “A  flake,”  says  he,  “is 
the  result  of  the  natural  fracture  of  the  flint,  and 
a nodule  of  flint  mechanically  crushed  by  a stone- 
breaker  produces  as  perfect  flakes  as  are  now  re- 
ferred to  human  workmanship.” 

When  Keltic  tumuli  are  opened,  it  is  usual  to 
find  some  chipped  flints  with  the  rude  bronze  tools 
and  pottery  which  accompany  human  remains. 


WHAT  ANCIENT  SKULLS  PROVE. 


177 


No  one  can  doubt  that  ancient  men  made  some 
use  of  split  flints ; but  to  assert  that  wherever  the 
split  flints  are  found  there  men  must  have  lived,  is 
‘‘quite  another  thing,”  as  we  say.  Why  are  not 
petrifactions  of  the  men  found  with  the  millions  of 
flints,  if  men  did  split  and  chip  them  ? They  have 
been  collecting  these  flints,  and  raving  about  them, 
for  years  ; but  no  human  petrifaction  can  be  found 
among  them — although  a new  human  jaw,  placed 
among  the  gravel  by  a grave-digger,  deceived  one 
French  enthusiast,  in  a ludicrous  way. 

Nor  does  the  discovery  of  the  human  relics  at 
Engis,  or  Cro-Magnon,  or  Mentone,  aid  the  high 
scientific  people  in  their  attempt  to  discredit  the 
Bible  account  of  the  late  introduction  of  Man,  by 
the  Creator.  Although  they  will  have  it  that  these 
relics  have  been  found  in  sites  which  prove  a high 
antiquity,  nobody  asserts  that  the  skulls  show  we 
are  closely  related  to  apes.  Huxley  himself  says 
the  Engis  skull  might  have  been  the  skull  of  a 
philosopher;  and  the  other  skulls  are  very  large, 
and  the  parts  of  skeletons  found  with  them  show 
that  the  skulls  must  have  been  worn  on  the 
shoulders  of  men  more  than  six  feet  high.  This 


178 


THE  MAMMOTH  IN  SIBERIA 


cannot  surprise  us.  The  Bible  assures  us  that 
men  of  great  stature  lived  in  ancient  times.  Prin- 
cipal Dawson  contends  that  these  may  be  relics  of 
antediluvian  men. 

Let  it  be  observed,  too,  that  so  far  from  the 
finding  of  a few  chipped  flints  in  caverns,  along 
with  parts  of  the  bones  of  the  Mammoth,  proving 
a great  antiquity, — the  finding  of  a score,  or  one 
hundred,  perfect  petrifactions  of  men,  in  the  same 
situation,  ought  not  to  lead  us  into  the  mistaken 
conclusion  that  therefore  the  human  petrifactions 
must  have  lain  there  several  thousand  years.  I 
am  talking  to-night  in  the  hearing,  doubtless,  of 
many  general  readers,  and  some  of  you  must  be 
amiliar  with  a fact  which  has  been  mentioned, 
again  and  again,  in  various  publications.  The 
body  of  a mammoth  entire  was  reported  to  have 
been  seen  by  an  English  traveller,  at  the  close  of 
the  last  century,  on  the  fall  of  a mass  of  ice,  on  the 
banks  of  the  Lena,  in  Siberia.  Mr.  Adams,  in 
i8Ci3,  went  and  found  the  mammoth.  Part  of  its 
body  had  been  devoured  by  wolves,  and  the  Yakut 
hunters,  who  showed  him  the  skeleton,  informed 
him  that  they  had  given  some  of  the  flesh  to  their 


MUST  HAVE  LIVED  LATELY. 


179 


dogs.  Such  of  its  skin  as  remained  was  covered 
with  black  bristles,  thicker  than  horse-hair,  with  a 
warm  covering,  underneath,  of  reddish  wool  and 
hair.  The  skeleton  of  this  animal  is  now  in  the 
St.  Petersburg  museum. 

Now  I appeal  to  your  common  sense, — Can 
you  believe  that  wolves  and  dogs  could  eat  flesh 
which  had  been  enclosed  in  ice  for  several  thou- 
sand years  ? Can  you  believe  they  could  eat  it, 
if  it  had  been  so  enclosed  one  thousand  years?  I 
confess  to  you  that  I cannot.  My  humble  conclusion 
is  that  mammoths  were  existing  in  Siberia  not  one 
thousand  years  ago.  Pallas,  the  great  traveller, 
obtained  the  body  of  a rhinoceros  which  had  been 
frozen  up  in  the  same  manner.  And  when  the 
mass  of  thick  hair  was  seen  ^n  the  head  and  foot, 
which  were  taken  also  to  St.  Petersburg,  the  be- 
holders said  it  must  have  lived  in  Siberia,  by  its 
clothing.  I should  say  that  some  of  these  huge 
animals  not  only  lived  there — being  fitted  by  the 
Almighty  Maker  for  the  climate — but  it  is  not  so 
very  long  ago  that  they  lived  there. 

There  has,  no  doubt,  been  a most  eager  and 
uneasy  snatching  at  every  straw  which  they  ima- 


i8o 


THE  VICTORIA  CAVE  MISTAKE. 


gined  would  support  their  long-age-of-man  theory, 
by  leading  geologists ; but  they  are,  ever  and  anon, 
found  to  be  only  straws,  and  no  real  supports. 
The  fibula  of  a man,  which,  it  was  triumphantly 
proclaimed,  had  been  found  in  the  Victoria  Cave, 
near  Settle,  is  now  declared  to  be  part  of  the  leg 
bone  of  a bear ! And  so  it  has  been  with  other 
judgments  pronounced  in  haste,  at  the  dictate  of 
the  will,  and  not  of  reason. 

It  is  affirmed  that  the  late  creation  of  Man, 
recorded  in  the  Bible,  does  not  afford  time  enough 
for  the  growth  of  such  civilisations  as  those  of  the 
ancient  Egyptians  and  Assyrians.  I have  not  time 
to  go  into  such  a question  now;  but  I humbly 
think,  if  you  make  the  due  inquiry  for  yourselves, 
you  will  not  come  to  that  conclusion. 


CRAZY  PEDIGREE  OF  MAN, 


z8i 


XIL 


Haeckel’s  pedigree  of  man  : weakness  and 

FOLLY  OF  the  DOCTRINE  OF  EVOLUTION. 

E must  not  merely  consider  Evolution  as 


» ^ the  theory  of  Man’s  origin — for  Pro- 
fessor Haeckel,  the  leading  Evolutionist  of  Ger- 
many, gives  us  our  animal  pedigree  of  twenty-twc 
stages. 

(i)  Anthropoid  or  men,  were  evolved  from  the 
(2)  Pithecanihropoid  or  dumb  ape-men ; and  they 
from  the  (3)  AnthropoideSd  or  man-like  apes 
(gorilla,  orang-outang,  chimpanzee,  etc.) ; and 
they  from  the  (4)  Menocercad  or  tailed  apes,  or 
monkeys;  and  they  from  the  (5)  ProsimicBd  or  half- 
apes (Indris  and  Loris) ; and  they  from  the 

(6)  Marsupialiad  or  kangaroos  ; and  they  from  the 

(7)  Pro-Mammalia  (the  duck-billed  Platypus  and 
Echidna) ; and  they  from  the  (8)  Protamniotad — 


i82 


OUR  DESCENT  FROM  SHARKS. 


(‘‘What  they  were  like,  I do  not  suppose  any 
one  is  in  a position  to  say!’*  says  Huxley);  and 
they  from  the  (9)  Sozura,  or  half  Amphibia ; and 
they  from  the  (10)  true  Amphibia;  and  they  from 
the  (ii)  Dipneicsta^  or  Lepidosirens ; and  they 
from  the  (12)  SelacMi]  or  Sharks. 

“Mercy  on  us!”  exclaims  some  one,  “does 
the  man  mean  to  tell  us  that  we  come  out  of 
shajks  ? ” 

“ And  what  if  he  does  ? ” cries  another ; “ are 
not  some  of  us  held  to  be  sharks,  still  ? Are  not 
the  lawyers  called  sharks  ? ” 

“ Why,  yes,”  says  another,  “but  then,  you  know, 
they  are  land-sharks,  and  Haeckel  means  water- 
sharks  ! ” 

“ And  what  were  the  sharks  developed  from, 
please?  ” 

Oh,  from  the  (i^)  Pfonorhina,  or  Lampreys;  and 
they  from  the  (14)  Acrania  (represented  by  the 
Amphioxus);  and  they  from  the  (15)  Chordoiiia 

“Never  heard  of  such  a creature!  ” cries  some 
one. 

No — nor  was  it  ever  heard  of,  till  Haeckel 
said  it  7nust  have  existed — for  the  Ascidian  must 


OUR  'earliest  ancestor.’  183 

have  come  out  of  it,  and  the  Ascidian  must  be  ' one 
of  our  ancestors  ’ ! 

‘'And  what  did  the  Chordonia  come  out  of,  by 
Evolution,  or  Development  ? ” 

From  the  (16)  Solecida  (some  kind  of  Annelida, 
or  worms) ; and  they  from  the  (17)  Archehninthes^ 
or  Turbellaria;  and  they  from  the  (18)  Gastrcea 
(another  imaginary  creature,  like  the  Chordoma) ; 
and  they  from  the  (19)  Planceada^  or  ciliated 
animalculae ; and  they  from  the  (20)  compound 
Arncebce ; and  they  from  the  (21)  Simple  Amxbce ; 

and  they  from  the  (22)  

“And  what’s  that,  sir?”  says  some  one. 

Haeckel  says  that  it  is  an  ‘ albuminous  com- 
pound of  carbon,’  and  the  earliest  form  of  life ; — 
that  it  begun  to  live  in  the  Laurentian  strata,  by 
spontaneous  generation ; and  that  its  acceptance 
as  our  earliest  ancestor  is  necessary  ' on  the  most 
Weighty  general  grounds  ’ 1 

“Have  any  petrifactions  of  the  Pithecanthropoi^ 
or  dumb  ape-men,  ever  been  found  ? ” some  of 
you  will  ask. 

No  ; but  Haeckel  sagely  conjectures  they  will 
be  found  some  day^  in  Afiica,  or  Southern  Asia — 


184 


DARWIN  TALKING  NONSENSE. 


although  he  also  conjectures  that  they  dwelt  chiefly 
in  Leimcria^  a continent  which  is  now  sunk — he 
again  conjectures — in  the  Indian  ocean  ! 

If  such  be  modern  philosophy,  am  I wrong  in 
calling  it  philosophy-run-mad? 

Mr.  Darwin,  and  the  rest,  seem  very  meekly  to 
accept  all  this  monstrous  nonsense  from  the  mighty 
Haeckel;  and  Mr.  Darwin  also  conjures  us  to 
respect  our  ancestors  ! 

But  are  they  coming  after  us  ? — we  cannot  help 
asking  Mr.  Darwin  and  his  grand  compeers  in 
'‘science'  If  Evolution  be  true,  though  the  dumb 
ape-men  are  no  more,  we  ought  to  behold  some 
progress  upwards  in  the  race  next  below  them. 
What  progress  are  they  making — the  Gorilla,  and 
Ourang,  and  Chimpanzee  ? Do  they  approach 
towards  our  human  civilisation  ? Where  are  their 
houses — their  towns— their  cities  ? Where  are 
their  ships — their  bridges — their  railways  ? Where 
are  their  books — their  libraries — their  picture  and 
sculpture  galleries  ? Where  are  their  arts  and 
sciences  ? Which  of  the  animals  have  they  tamed 
and  domesticated  ? 

How  dreary  the  answer  ! “ They  all  remain  in 


SPECIES  REMAIN  UNCHANGED.  185 

their  savagery,  still  ! ” One  would  think  it  should 
silence  these  wild  philosophers.  But  when  men 
set  themselves  to  maintain  a theory,  how  often 
do  we  see  that  they  are  not  moved  even  by 
what  they  themselves  confess  to  be  the  strongest 
disproofs  of  their  theory.  It  is  a well-known  fact 
that  animals  of  different  species  do  not  breed 
together;  or  if,  as  in  the  instance  of  the  horse 
and  ass,  a hybrid  (the  mule)  is  produced,  the 
hybrids  will  not  breed.  So  long  as  this  remains  a 
fact,  says  Professor  Huxley,  so  long  Mr.  Darwin’s 
theory  can  only  remain  a theory  I And  yet  Pro- 
fessor Huxley  proclaims  himself  an  Evolutionist ! 

Historic  time  has  given  us  no  proof  of  Evolu- 
tion. Yonder,  in  old  Egypt,  are  the  pictures  of 
the  camel,  and  the  crocodile,  and  the  hippopo- 
tamus, and  the  ape  and  monkey,  and  other  crea- 
tures,— with  the  mummies  of  the  ox,  and  cat,  and 
ibis, — and  all  show  that  there  has  been  no  evolution 
in  the  instance  of  any  of  these  animals,  in  several 
thousand  years.  This  was  a fact  on  which  the 
illustrious  Cuvier  was  wont  to  insist  very  strongly, 
in  his  rejection  of  the  Lamarckian  doctrines. 

And  who,  that  thinks  of  the  old  Greeks,  can 

13 


l86 


WE  DO  NOT  EQUAL  THE  GREEKS. 


assert  there  has  been  any  evolution  for  Man  ? We 
are  neither  so  fine  a people  physically,  nor  in 
intelligence.  When  you  remember  their  poetry, 
and  think  of  their  Homer,  and  ^schylus,  and 
Sophocles,  and  a long  list  beside ; when  you  think 
of  their  philosophy,  and  remember  their  Plato  and 
Aristotle,  and  a countless  host  of  other  names; 
when  you  think  of  the  art  of  government,  and 
remember  their  almost  perfect  Pericles ; when  you 
think  of  patriotism,  and  remember  their  Leonidas 
and  hundreds  of  other  heroes ; when  you  think  of 
their  marvellous  sculpture,  and  remember  that  no 
modern  nation  has  ever  approached  it  in  excellence; 
when  you  think  of  the  perfect  beauty  of  their 
language, — who  can  fail  to  pronounce  the  old 
Greeks  the  most  matchless  people  that  ever  yet 
existed?  You  will  say,  we  know  more  than  they 
knew.  Just  so  ; because  we  reap  the  knowledge 
and  the  fruits  of  the  experience  of  ages.  But  we 
are  not  the  equals  of  the  old  Greeks,  as  a people, 
for  all  that. 

There  are  some  signs  of  this  whimsical  theory 
of  Evolution  soon  taking  another  phase.  Carl 
Vogt  has  given  hints  that  perhaps  they  have,  after 


WE  KNOW  NOT  HOW  GOD  CREATES.  1 87 

all,  made  a mistake  as  to  the  line  of  descent.  It 
may  be  found,  he  conjectures,  that  Man  is  not 
descended  from  the  Ape  family,  but  from  the 
Dog! 

Other  theories  may  soon  be  heard  of — for  the 
human  mind  is  restless  under  the  burthen  of 
mystery.  Mystery  seals  up  many  a page  of  the 
Bible  to  us,  in  this  our  imperfect  state  ; and  mystery 
surrounds  us  on  every  side  in  nature.  The  mystery 
of  our  own  existence — of  the  existence  of  our 
race — the  mystery  of  life — is  felt  to  be  intolerable 
to  some  men.  They  are  unwilling  to  receive  the 
doctrine  of  Creation  by  an  Almighty  Maker  as  a 
solution.  ‘‘You  only  answer  us  by  another  mys- 
tery,^’ they  exclaim ; “ Creation  by  an  Almighty 
Maker  is  a mystery,*^  or,  as  Herbert  Spencer  says, 
it  is  unthinkable. 

If  by  unthinkable  he  means  incomprehensible, 
our  reply  is — So  it  is  in  millions  of  cases  : we 
really  comprehend  nothing;  and  there  are  thou- 
sands of  facts  we  never  dream  of  comprehending. 
We  shall  never  be  able  to  comprehend  how  God 
creates.  We  can  only  think  of  creation  as  the  act 
Almighty  Will.  The  highest  archangel  can  no 


r88 


WE  HOLD  BY  OUR  FAITH 


more  comprehend  it  than  we.  If  God  exists,  He 
must  be  able  to  create : that  is  the  beginning  and 
the  end  of  it. 

You  and  I are  believers  in  God’s  existence ; and 
so  we  do  not  seek  to  pry  into  His  method  of 
creation.  The  design  and  contrivance  we  discern 
in  Nature  prove  His  wisdom  to  us.  His  endowment 
of  His  creature  Man,  with  attributes  so  superior  to 
the  limited  powers  of  brutes,  renders  us  unwilling 
to  listen^^^^Ifer  to  the  doctrine  that  we  are 
developed  from  the  brutes/  or  the  dark  doctrines 
of  Materialism  and  Anninilation,  which  are  held, 
also,  by  our  modern  philosophers. 

We  thank  God  that  we  are  Christian  men,  and, 
turning  from  the  degrading  proclamation  of  the 
professedly  wise  r»en,  that  we  are  born  of  the 
brutes,  and  shall  {)erish  like  them,  and  be  no  more 
for  ever — we  listen  to  the  glorious  words,  I am 
the  Resurrection  and  the  Life.  He  that  believeth 
in  me,  though  he  were  dead,  yet  shall  he  live. 
And  he  that  liveth  and  believeth  in  me,  shall  nevei 
die.” 


X X V X V X V X V X V x.|x  xfx  xtx  x V y x V x V x^x  x V x V X 

->^i*:*:*:*:*>:*:*:%*:*>:*:*:*:v:‘:*:*:*:<*:*:*V\*>>:*:*:^ 


A U7iique  ajid  Valuable  Book : 

BLASTS  FROM  A RAM’S  HORN;  Or,  Meetin 
Matters  on  Ciderville  Sirkut. 

By  KlylJAH  P.  BROWN,  Editor  of  the  RanVs  Horn. 

121110.  Cloth.  j88  pages ^ $i  20 

Contains  the  famous  “Ganderfoot  Letters,”  in  which 
Silas  Ganderfoot,  of  Muskeeter  Kounty,  in  style  and 
orthography  all  his  own,  recounts  the  doins  in  Methodist 
circles  on  Ciderville  Sirkut.  Also  contains  selected  ser- 
mons, addresses,  sayings,  etc.,  of  the  noted  evangelist- 
author,  with  an  account  of  his  wonderful  conversion  from 
infidelity.  A book  replete  with  interest  and  instruction. 

Every  reader  of  this  book  will  find  himself  built  up  in  the 
faith.  The  light  needs  no  introduction,  because  it  is  good  for  the 
eyes.  This  book  needs  no  words  of  praise,  because  the  truth  is 
sweet  to  the  heart. — Re\^  Henry  A.  Buchtel,  in  hitroduction. 

The  author  of  this  volume  is  a genius;  more,  he  is  a moral 
philosopher;  more,  he  is  a man  of  the  keenest  spiritual  insight, 
and  has  a remarkable  talent  for  portrajdng,  in  the  most  ridiculous 
light,  inconsistent  and  worldly  Church  members.  . . . The  book 
will  be  read  with  both  interest  and  profit. — Religious  Telescope. 


Two  Splendid  Stories  in  07ie  Volu7ne: 

MISTAKEN,  and  MARION  FORSYTH,  Or,  Unspotted 
from  the  World. 

Stories  of  True  and  False  Devotion. 

By  ANNIE  s.  SWAN. 

167710.  Cloth.  T44  pages, 45  cents. 

“This  is  not  a fancy  sketch;  it  is  truth?  The  vine- 
yard is  large,  the  laborers  few.  Are  there  any  who,  for 
Christ’s  sake,  are  ready  to  work  for  him  with  earnestness 
and  singleness  of  heart,  keeping  themselves  unspotted 
from  the  world?” — Extract. 

Although  a deep  religious  character  pervades  the  book,  it  is  all 
the  moie  interesting.  Annie  Swan  has  shown  us  how  to  make  a 
religious  story  the  most  readable  of  —Journal  and  Messenger. 


CRANSTON  & CURTS,  Cisicirsnati,  Chicago,  St.  Louis. 


X^xtx  xtx  xlx  xfxxfx  xfx  xV  xV  --kV  xV  xfx  xV  xfx  xfx  xfx^y 

Irin  I iT^l  fiSl  Tr^l  hdbl  lYi^l  Pr^,  ^ ^ 

^ x|x  xjx  xjx  xjx  xjx  xjx  xix  xix  xix  xix  x|x  xjx  xjx  xjx  xjx  Xj.'^|x*'y^ 


THE  WORKS  OF 

BISHOP  STEPHEN  M.  MERRILL,  D.D.,LL  D. 

Aspects  of  Christian  Experience. 

i6mo.  Cloth.  2gj  pages,  go  cents, 

“God  works  in  us  that  we  may  have  a good  will,  and  with  us 
wh^n  we  have  a good  will,  and  in  all  his  inworking  he  respects 
the  nature  of  the  soul,  with  its  attributes  of  rationalit}’-  and  moral 
freedom.  The  divine  agency  neither  overpowers  nor  violates  the 
human  agency.” — Extract. 

The  design  has  been  to  group  the  substantial  doctrines  of 
Christianity  with  reference  to  Christian  experience  in  such  a way 
as  to  give  to  each  its  appropriate  place  and  importance,  without 
exalting  one  at  the  expense  of  the  — Preface. 

Christian  Baptism.  Its  Subjects  and  Mode. 

i6mo.  Cloth,  jio  pages,  go  cents. 

“The  Gospel  comes  to  all,  in  every  a^,  in  every  condition,  in 
the  polar  snows  or  the  burning  sands,  in  arid  wastes  or  mountain 
fastnesses,  in  palace  or  hospital,  in  the  air  of  freedom  or  wl^in 
prison  walls;  and  it  comes  with  all  its  comforts  and  helps,  and  in 
perfect  adaptation  to  all.  But,  tested  by  this  rule,  exclusive  immer- 
sion is  another  system  '’—Extract. 

I have  thought  that  something  of  this  character,  inexpensive 
and  unpretentious,  ought  to  be  offered  to  those  who  lack  time  or 
disposition  to  study  more  critical  works,  and  with  this  view  I send 
out  these  discourses,  believing  they  will  measurably  meet  a real 
want,  and  contribute  toward  the  removal  of  the  more  serious  diffi- 
culties from  the  minds  of  earnest  seekers  after  truth. — Preface. 

Digest  of  Methodist  Law ; or,  Helps  in  the  Admin- 
istration of  the  Discipline  of  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church. 

i6nio.  Cloth.  ^77  pages,  go  cents. 

“The  design  of  all  disciplinary  administration  should  be  kept 
in  mind.  It  is  the  honor  and  purity  of  the  Church,  and  the  spiritual 
good  of  the  parties  concerned.  It  is  not  punishment.  The  Church 
has  no  power  or  mission  in  that  direction.” — Extract. 

This  treatise  is  written  and  sent  out  with  the  hope  that  it  will 
prove  helpful  to  all  who  are  charged  with  the  duty  of  administering 
the  Discipline  of  the  Church,  and  especially  the  younger  pastors. — 
Preface. 

CRANSTON  & CURTS,  Publishers. 

CIITCI3^TiT-^TZ,  CHIC.^a-0,  ST.  X-OXTIS. 


Works  of  Bishop  Stephen  M.  Merrill,  D.  D.,  LL  D. — Continued^ 


The  New  Testament  Idea  of  Hell. 

1 6 mo.  Cloth.  2'/ 6 pages,  go  cents. 

“ The  clear,  steady  current  of  truth  sweeps  away  all  these 
devices  of  error,  like  drift  upon  the  flowing  stream,  leaving  no 
resort  for  the  believer  in  the  Scriptures  but  to  acknowledge  the 
fact  that  the  hour  is  coming  in  the  which  all  that  are  in  the  graves 
shall  hear  his  voice  and  come  forth  ; they  that  have  done  good  unto 
the  resurrection  of  life,  and  they  that  have  done  evil  unto  the 
resurrection  of  damnation.” — Extract. 

This  little  book  is  written  for  readers  of  the  English  Scrip- 
tures, and  not  for  those  having  access  to  the  wide  range  of  theo- 
logical discussions  found  in  the  ponderous  works  on  Systematic 
Divinity,  which  crowd  the  libraries  of  the  learned. — Preface. 

The  Second  Coming  of  CTirist,  Considered  in  its 
Relation  to  the  Millennium,  the  Resurrection, 
and  the  Judgment. 

i6mo.  Cloth.  282  pages,  go  cents. 

Hoping  that  it  may  be  the  means  of  saving  some  from  falling 
into  erratic  notions,  and  of  confirming  the  wavering  in  the  truth, 
and  of  stirring  up  in  others  a profounder  sense  of  accountability 
to  God  in  a coming  day,  I prayerfully  send  this  volume  forth  upon 
its  mission,  bespeaking  for  it  as  much  of  candor  in  its  perusal 
as  has  been  observed  in  its  preparation. — Preface. 

The  Organic  Union  of  American  Methodism. 

i2mo.  Cloth.  1 12  pages.  45  cents. 

“ The  subject  of  the  future  relations  of  the  dissevered  branches 
of  the  Methodist  family  is  sufficiently  important  to  attract  atten- 
tion to  the  utteranees  of  any  one  who  feels  moved  to  give  expression 
to  thoughts  which  have  become  convictions,  especially  when 
clothed  in  the  language  of  moderation  and  sincerity.”  — 
Paragraph. 

From  the  IMtchigan  Christian  Advocate, 

The  book  will  be  greedily  read  by  the  large-hearted  men  of  all 
branches  of  Methodism  . . It  is  not  an  impromptu  production, 

but  the  crystallization  of  years  of  observation  and  thought. 


CRANSTON  &,  CURTS,  Publishers, 

C:E=CIC-^<3-0,  ST.  IjOTTIS. 


y xfvv  .-^xyjx  xJ^x  ^ix  xjxxixxjxxix  xjx  xjxxjx  xjx  xjxxixxjxxix'x 


SEVEN  GREAT  LIGHTS. 

By  RKV.  KKRR  B.  TUPPER,  D.  D. 

1 2mo.  Cloth.  1 88  pages ^ 75  cents. 

Sketches  of  Luther,  Cranmer,  Knox,  Weseey, 
Edwards,  Campbeee,  and  Spurgeon. 

Dr.  W.  E.  McDowell,  President  of  the  University  of  Denver, 
says  in  the  Introduction  : “These  ‘Seven  Great  Eights’  were  not 
chosen  arbitrarily,  but  were  selected,  after  careful  consultation,  to 
represent  these  seven  Churches.  They  are  presented  here  in  chron- 
ological order,  with  Luther,  founder  of  Protestantism,  at  the  head, 
and  Spurgeon,  one  of  its  finest  products,  at  the  close  of  the  list.’’ 

Dr.  Tupper  discusses  the  questions  involved  in  a true  catholic 
spirit.  His  style  is  lucid  and  chaste.  His  estimate  of  men  is  gen- 
erally fair  and  candid.  These  brief  monographs  are  useful  as  well 
as  interesting.— .g'zbw’.y  Herald. 

The  book  is  eminently  suggestive  and  stimulating.  The  lives 
of  men  eminent  for  zeal  and  consecration  are  full  of  inspiration. 
Men  of  different  creeds  are  here  seen  to  be  one  in  consecrated 
earnestness.’’ — The  Guardian,  Toronto. 

The  sketches  are  well  drawn,  vigorous,  and  readable.  They 
give  valuable  information  respecting  each  of  the  great  men  men- 
tioned, and  also  respecting  the  times  in  which  they  lived. — Public 
Opinion,  Washington,  D.  C. 


CORNER  WORK;  Or,  Look  Up  and  Lift  Up. 

By  MYRA  GOODWIN  PLANTZ. 

i2mo.  Cloth,  p//  pages, 75  cents. 

‘‘In  the  world  of  darkness. 

So  we  must  shine — 

You  in  your  small  corner, 

And  I in  niine.'*^ — Song. 

An  excellent  story  for  the  young,  based  on  Epworth  League 
principles,  and  will  be  received  with  favor  by  all  members  of  this 
organization,  as  well  as  by  our  Sunday-schools.  It  will  give  a 
“Look-up  and  Lift-up’’  to  every  one  who  reads  it. — Baltimore 
Methodist. 

This  is  a pure,  entrancing,  instructive  religious  story,  so 
written  as  to  interest  and  impress  for  good  any  who  may  read  it, 
especially  the  young.  In  the  realm  of  religious  fiction  it  deserves 
to  rank  high,  and  will  be  found  to  be  an  invaluable  addition  to  Sun- 
day-school libraries  and  to  the  family  library. — Religious  Telescope. 


CRANSTON  & CURTS,  Cincinnati,  Chicago,  St.  Louis 


✓ 


l 


t 


